Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

Kuhn Nicolas <> Tue, 17 May 2016 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9527A12D99F; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:23:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z9cMRWwLhmRz; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:23:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1AD12D987; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,324,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="3495729"
From: Kuhn Nicolas <>
To: Tero Kivinen <>
Thread-Topic: Secdir review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11
Thread-Index: AQHRoIyZ3aFSg9THzUGEGUMXQuD6up+860sggAAbloCAAFcrgA==
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:23:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--37.777500-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:23:46 -0000

I agree with you: this format does not ease the reading.  This is however how it is done in, e.g. RFC 7567. This is more readable for someone aware of the activity in the working group (for someone familiar with the mentioned RFCs, seeing [RFC7567] is easier than [5]). It depends who is targeted by the draft. I think (hope?) that someone using these guidelines would have read RFC7567 first.  


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Tero Kivinen [] 
Envoyé : mardi 17 mai 2016 14:08
À : Kuhn Nicolas
Cc :;;; Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)
Objet : RE: Secdir review of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11

Kuhn Nicolas writes:
> Thanks a lot for your review. If you believe that your proposed 
> changes on the references format should deserve changes in the 
> document and a new ID, please let us know, we would try to integrate 
> them ASAP.

> Current format makes the document hard to read, especially for those who do are not very familiar with the area, as it is hard to remember which rfc is which (7567, 5481, 2679 etc)

> My recommendation would be to fix that, but this is my personal preference on the matter.