On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:11:33 -0800 Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf