Skip to main content
Network Engineering

Return to Answer

added 33 characters in body
Source Link
Mike Pennington Mod
Mike Pennington Mod
  • 30k
  • 14
  • 31

In the question you sitedcited, the user is simply asking for clarification about your answer; however, there is nothing that requires you to continue answering his questions. There However, there is a chance someone could come along after you and provide a more comprehensive answer that gets accepted because it responds to all his concerns.

Although it says "requesting clarification" is OK, where do we draw the line between clarifications and asking a new question altogether?

It's somewhat subjective, but I usually consider itasking for a completely new question when the questions inclarifying comments start creeping outside the original scope of the thread. For instance, if someone asks a question about how the Cisco ASA handles TCP window-scale options, and then in the comments they ask about the PPS throughput of a router attached to the firewall. The router has nothing to do with the original question, and in most cases, it has nothing to do with processing window scale options... that clearly should be a different question.

However, let's suppose the followup question in the comments was about how the TCP window-scale option is handled in a Palo Alto Firewall... it's debatable whether you should require thenthem to ask a different question, particularly if you already know the answer.

In the question you sited, the user is simply asking for clarification about your answer; however, there is nothing that requires you to continue answering his questions. There is a chance someone could come along after you and provide a more comprehensive answer that gets accepted because it responds to all his concerns

Although it says "requesting clarification" is OK, where do we draw the line between clarifications and asking a new question altogether?

It's somewhat subjective, but I usually consider it when the questions in comments start creeping outside the original scope of the thread. For instance, if someone asks a question about how the Cisco ASA handles TCP window-scale options, and then in the comments they ask about the PPS throughput of a router attached to the firewall. The router has nothing to do with the original question, and in most cases, it has nothing to do with processing window scale options... that clearly should be a different question.

However, let's suppose the followup question in the comments was about how the TCP window-scale option is handled in a Palo Alto Firewall... it's debatable whether you should require then to ask a different question, particularly if you already know the answer.

In the question you cited, the user is simply asking for clarification about your answer; there is nothing that requires you to continue answering his questions. However, there is a chance someone could come along after you and provide a more comprehensive answer that gets accepted because it responds to all his concerns.

Although it says "requesting clarification" is OK, where do we draw the line between clarifications and asking a new question altogether?

It's somewhat subjective, but I usually consider asking for a completely new question when the clarifying comments start creeping outside the original scope of the thread. For instance, if someone asks a question about how the Cisco ASA handles TCP window-scale options, and then in the comments they ask about the PPS throughput of a router attached to the firewall. The router has nothing to do with the original question, and in most cases, it has nothing to do with processing window scale options... that clearly should be a different question.

However, let's suppose the followup question in the comments was about how the TCP window-scale option is handled in a Palo Alto Firewall... it's debatable whether you should require them to ask a different question, particularly if you already know the answer.

Source Link
Mike Pennington
Mike Pennington
  • 30k
  • 14
  • 31

In the question you sited, the user is simply asking for clarification about your answer; however, there is nothing that requires you to continue answering his questions. There is a chance someone could come along after you and provide a more comprehensive answer that gets accepted because it responds to all his concerns

Although it says "requesting clarification" is OK, where do we draw the line between clarifications and asking a new question altogether?

It's somewhat subjective, but I usually consider it when the questions in comments start creeping outside the original scope of the thread. For instance, if someone asks a question about how the Cisco ASA handles TCP window-scale options, and then in the comments they ask about the PPS throughput of a router attached to the firewall. The router has nothing to do with the original question, and in most cases, it has nothing to do with processing window scale options... that clearly should be a different question.

However, let's suppose the followup question in the comments was about how the TCP window-scale option is handled in a Palo Alto Firewall... it's debatable whether you should require then to ask a different question, particularly if you already know the answer.