On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:11:33 -0800
Lisa Dusseault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 31, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
>
> > There is perhaps one more aspect to "Can somebody explain ..." that
> > > is worth considering. In some cases, the AD simply does not have
> > > > the expertise or simply has incorrect/wrong understanding. In
> > > > that > case, the burden is on the authors to help the AD
> > > > understand the > context of the work, provide references to
> > > > reading material and > such. Until the AD understands at
> > > > his/her own pace, the work seems > to languish (sure the
> > > > authors do delay responses etc., but let us > work on one
> > > > problem at a time) in the IESG review stage.
>
> Sure. That could happen. But it's not usually the case that an AD
> who knows that they don't understand something, holds a DISCUSS on a
> document for a long time, all the while getting useful responses and
> help from authors. I sure wouldn't feel comfortable doing that.
Right. The usual AD vote is "no objection", not "yes". "No objection"
includes "I don't know enough to have a problem with this". In such
cases, I looked at the parts I did understand -- that, of course,
included authentication and (if appropriate) confidentiality -- and
worried about those, and didn't worry nearly as much about arcana at
other levels.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
