On 02/05/2014 00:07, Alan DeKok wrote:
...
> I'll try to weasel-word the document some more. But it's hard to make
> the document idiot-proof.
If I can chip in, one thing that tends to happen in Gen-ART reviews
is that people who have essentially zero knowledge of the topic make
a serious effort to understand a draft. So they (we) do tend to
trip over things that are common knowledge to people active in the
field, and fail to make assumptions that seem obvious to specialists.
If you imagine the spec being implemented by a beginning programmer
who has never attended an IETF meeting and is reading the RFC
in a remote corner of the world, he or she is very likely to trip
over the same things and miss the same assumptions.
Personally I think that's one of the main benefits of non-specialist
reviews: finding the things that might confuse naive implementors.
(As an author, I've always tried to apply the principle that if even
one reviewer finds somthing unclear, then it *is* unclear and
I need to fix it.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
