>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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 7:38 AM To: har...@alvestrand.no Cc: ietf@ietf.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?
