So, I'll tell everyone how I deal with Gen-ART Reviews. Other
General ADs may have done things slightly different.
When I use a Gen-ART Review as the basis of a DISCUSS, I put it in
one of two categories.
(1) The Gen-ART Review was ignored. Like any other Last Call
comment, it deserves an answer. So, this is a procedural
objection. In this situation, I've been careful to say that the
authors do not need to accept all of the comments, but then need to
I have reviewed documents as a Gen-ART reviewer (during Brian's
tenure I think), sec-dir reviewer and also provided IETF LC comments
on some documents. As a reviewer, I am not sure whether I was
expecting answers all those times. I am pretty sure I have not
always stated whether or not the answers are satisfactory.
Next, I can imagine an author not wanting to respond to something I
may have said because it was totally bogus or inappropriate and does
not deserve a response. That might very well happen when I review
documents on a topic that I am not familiar with and haven't had the
time to read related references (that varies depending on the time
available, etc.). Perhaps that is not such a bad thing; being
blissfully ignorant on some topics keeps me, well, blissful. I use
somewhat of a hyperbole for obvious reasons. I am sure many other
situations are much more nuanced. I hope ADs don't continue to hold
a DISCUSS in those situations waiting for a dialog to take place or
waiting for a consensus to emerge. I sometimes hint in my reviews
that the topic may be at the border of my knowledge and if I have a
bias. Perhaps that is helpful.
Even if the response does not go to the person making the comments,
ADs need to see a response. Silence does not help us understand if
consensus has been achieved. Last Call is the only point in the
development and review of many documents where review from other IETF
Areas takes place. It is very important that this cross-Area review
IETF mailing list