Hi Hannes,
I would also like to reach developers that may not be familiar with the IETF
and find themselves assigned with developing protocols we designed. I'll see
if I (or my co-chair) can get something together in short order. ENISA was
reviewing materials and asked for this type of information. For our work, they
are an important group that have not been attending meetings, but do follow the
work.
Thanks,
Kathleen
-----Original Message-----
From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:hannes(_dot_)tschofenig(_at_)gmx(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 1:18 PM
To: Moriarty, Kathleen
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig; harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Education and Information Sharing ... was Re: Transparency in
Specifications and PRISM-class attacks
Hi Kathleen,
you are responding to the question about the target audience* and I saw your
video. That's an interesting idea to reach out to those who are not yet
involved in an IETF group.
Of course, our working group pages and the Wikis are not necessarily are great
way to communicate with people other than our main target audience.
There is indeed something we could improve and I had in fact given a
presentation about this topic to the IAB at the retreat this year. Here are the
slides:
http://www.tschofenig.priv.at/IAB_Work_Style.pdf
Ciao
Hannes
PS: I got the impression from Harald's response that he was actually thinking
about a different audience. Of course, the audience determines the content.
On 20.09.2013 17:28, Moriarty, Kathleen wrote:
From my experience, some people not as familiar with the IETF have
trouble understanding how to fit RFCs together. That leads to a
readability problem in itself. Some also don't realize that you can
reference part of one RFC and not the whole thing rather than
reinventing the wheel or documenting something again.
For MILE, we had several requests to pull together descriptions on how
the drafts& RFCs fit together. We did a short video, but need to get
a wiki or something together to assist. In light of the current
thread, I think it is important to include in that the current set of
security protections in case they are not adequate and it gets
someone's attention who is interested to help improve things (even
just through critiques). We will try to get this together in a wiki
soon. If it helps readability, maybe to would be good for others to
consider?
Thanks, Kathleen
-----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig Sent:
Friday, September 20, 2013 7:38 AM To: harald(_at_)alvestrand(_dot_)no Cc:
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org Subject: Re: Transparency in Specifications and
PRISM-class attacks
On 20.09.2013 13:20, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
To my mind, the first thing to focus on is making our specs readable,
so that it's possible to understand that they have not been
compromised.
Three questions for you Harald:
1) When you say that our documents have to be "readable" then you have
to say readable by whom? Of course, most of our documents are tailored
to those who implement rather than to, let's say, someone who has
little understanding of Internet technology in general.
2) Are there documents you find non-readable?
3) Do you have any reasons to believe that there are documents that
have been compromised?