On Jun 8, 2005, at 14:23, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, June 08, 2005 01:59:19 PM -0400 Bruce Lilly
<blilly(_at_)erols(_dot_)com> wrote:
Evidently (and unfortunately) the
IETF Secretariat apparently doesn't enforce that part of the
ID-Checklist
rules.
Aside from making sure the proper boilerplate is included in documents
it publishes (which it pretty much has to do for legal reasons), the
IETF secretariat generally does not check submitted I-D's for
conformance with standards for submissions. To do otherwise would not
only be expensive and slow down the I-D submission process
considerably; it would also interfere with the IETF process.
True... but something like "has an IANA Considerations section" is easy
to check, and easy for the author to implement, even if it's just
starting with an I-D template that says "to be determined" or "author
should fill this in" or "author promises to take the RFC Editor out for
a pancake breakfast if this text is submitted for publication as an
RFC".
Internet-Drafts are works-in-progress; it is not necessary or even
desirable that every I-D be in a form suitable for submission to the
IESG before being added to the repository.
Also true. But there is a different requirements list for I-Ds than
for RFCs. If something shouldn't be required for I-D submission, then
it shouldn't be on that list. Evidently someone thought that IANA
Considerations should be in every I-D submission. Now, perhaps the
requirements list should be changed. I'm inclined to say not, in this
case; the "null" IANA Considerations section (as opposed to not having
one, or the pancake-breakfast template above) does imply that the
author has actually thought about it and concluded that IANA doesn't
need to do anything.
Ken
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf