Re: IANA Considerations

[Ned Freed <ned.freed at mrochek.com>]

> > 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.

Repeating for about the fourth time...

The argument against it is that requiring the section in the absence of actual
IANA considerations simply adds to the amount of required stuff we have in our
documents that serves no real purpose. We have way too much of this junk
already and attempts to require more need to be resisted.

The only reason to have it would as an indicator that a check for IANA
considerations was done and none were found. But the problem with that is that
there's no way to distinguish between a careful review leading to the prduction
of "no considerations" text and the text being added with little if any review
just "to make the IESG happy". And we already have at least one example where
this appears to have happened.

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

I disagree. I don't think it increases the probability much if at all, and in 
fact may actually decrease it. And even if it did increase the probability
slightly, the benefit of that increase needs to be weighed against the cost,
and I don't think it measures up.

				Ned

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