Re: IANA Considerations

[Brian E Carpenter <brc at zurich.ibm.com>]

Ned Freed wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Ned Freed wrote:
> > >> What exactly is it that you
> > >> think should be done (in addition to careful reviews) that would help
> > >> reduce the odds that the careful review find issues with the IANA
> > >> instructions (or lack thereof)?
> > >
> > > Simple: The requirement that an  IANA considerations section be 
> > included in RFC
> > > not containing any IANA actions needs to be dropped. I have been 
> > extremely
> > > clear ahout this.
>
>
> > It's good, because this is already the case.  Even if you're required
> > to add a "null" IANA considerations section in the internet-drafts
> > when being sent to the IESG, the RFC-editor removes the IANA
> > considerations section completely if it doesn't have any real content.
>
>
> > Anything else?
>
>
> It is the requirement that Internet Drafts always contain IANA 
> considerations sections that has to go.

Ned, you have not produced any argument for this position, and since
the absence of such a section does not imply the absence of IANA
considerations, your logic continues to escape me.

The argument for the mandatory presence of such a section is that
it increases the probability that any IANA considerations have been
identified.

> What the RFC Editor does after 
> document
> approval is not the issue here.

Not for you, maybe, but it is for me.

   Brian


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf