On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:11:33 -0800
Lisa Dusseault <lisa(_at_)osafoundation(_dot_)org> 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
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Ietf mailing list