Sam Hartman wrote:
Pekka> how important is it that documents get reviewed by *all*
Pekka> current areas? There are certainly some "cross-layer"
Pekka> areas, such as SEC and OPS, that should worry about all
Pekka> layers, but aren't the primary purpose of layering to make
Pekka> sure that people working on the other end the stack can
Pekka> feel safe to _mostly_ ignore details at the other end;
Pekka> e.g., that apps people don't need to worry about the
Pekka> details of the routing?
The current structure does not require document be reviewed by all
areas. I can (and sometmies do) record a no objection vote because I
believe that adequate review has taken place without me reading a
document.
That's correct. IESG ballot procedure does require 2/3 of the ADs to
record either a YES or a NO OBJECTION for a standards track or BCP
document. According to
http://www.ietf.org/u/ietfchair/voting-procedures.txt :
- "No Objection" means "I would not object if this document went forward".
examples where No Objection might be used include:
- I read it & have no problem with it
- I read the protocol action & trust the AD so have no problem
- I listened to the discussion and have no problem
This may be interpreted as "I have no clue or have no cycles",
in that you exercise the ability to move a document forward on the
basis of trust towards the other ADs
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf