Re: Required doc sections (Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt))

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

> For the record, things like IANA considerations sections should be
> required of I-Ds, even if to say that there aren't any.  A single such
> section gathering several such sub-sections should do ("Misc
> Considerations.  This draft has no IANA considerations.  This draft has
> no ...").

I have already explained why I think this is a Very Bad Idea.

> And some such sections might be removed by the RFC Editor, or
> not (e.g., remove IANA considerations sections that say there are no
> IANA considerations).

This I agree with - it is up to the RFC Editor to determine what's appropriate
to have in the final document.

				Ned

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