you know what? I think it would be great to write a IANA obligations RFC.
It would say that the IANA MUST maintain a list of all the obligations RFC
authors should respect when writting the IANA considerations, and to
document whatever additional information IANA may need (for example if a
DoS might result from a possible misuse of what they ask and the proposed
At 19:59 08/06/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to BCP
> Date: 2005-06-08 10:50
> From: Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
> > .. RFC2119, when used, must be a normative reference. Likewise,
> > you'll need to add a "null" IANA considerations section.
> Agreed on the RFC 2119 reference. However, I do not believe there is any
> requirement for "null" IANA considerations sections. (A scan of recently
> published standards track RFCs turned up several that don't have such a
> - 4022, 4015, etc.) Aren't we paddding out our documents with enough
> boilerplate already without adding yet another useless section to the mix?
The IETF Internet-Drafts page notes that "All Internet-Drafts that are
submitted to the IESG for consideration as RFCs must conform to the
requirements specified in the I-D Checklist". The current version of
the ID-Checklist clearly states:
The following are REQUIRED sections in all Internet-Drafts:
Must specify if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules for
an existing registry.
Must specify if the document requires IANA to assign or update values
in an IANA registry before RFC publication.
See "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
[RFC2434] and in some cases also "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values
In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers" [RFC2780]. In some case
"Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692]
may help as well.
If there is no action for IANA, the section should say that, e.g.,
including something like "This document has no actions for IANA."
And the RFC-Editor's "instructions to RFC Authors" (draft successor to
RFC 2223, on hold) notes:
Current policy (not documented in [IANA98]) is to include an IANA
Considerations section always, even if it is "null", i.e., even if
there are no IANA considerations. This is helpful to IANA.
However, the RFC Editor may remove any null IANA considerations
sections before publication.
I believe the requirements exist to ensure that draft authors give due
consideration to IANA Considerations and that IANA can readily determine
if some action is or is not required. Evidently (and unfortunately) the
IETF Secretariat apparently doesn't enforce that part of the ID-Checklist
As the RFC Editor removes null sections, you won't find them in published
RFCs. But Internet-Drafts are REQUIRED to have them.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list