"Ned" == Ned Freed <ned(_dot_)freed(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com> writes:
>> Dave, >Here's my own take:
>> >
>> >It is empty bureaucracy. It is form, without content. It is
>> additional >effort, with no benefit.
>> >
>> >It is reasonable and necessary to require that documents
>> contain >important considerations. This is not accomplished by
>> having pro forma >sections lacking content.
>> I am not a big fan of a lot of the current boiler plate. I
>> would be happy if I could submit drafts with <INSERT IETF
>> STANDARD FIXED BOILERPLATE> and have it done automatically
>> instead of having to figure out what the boiler plate text to
>> add is.
>> I think the the IANA Considerations section is different as
>> it's contents vary (unlike things like the copyright
>> statement). The argument to requiring it even if there aren't
>> any required IANA actions is similar to why protocols with
>> NACKs don't work. The IANA needs to know in a positive manner
>> that the author considered it. The lack of an IANA
>> considerations section is ambiguous.
Ned> Unfortunately so is the presence of an empty IANA
Ned> considerations section - you cannot tell the difference
Ned> between such a section that was arrived as as a result of
Ned> careful review of the draft and one that was simply created
Ned> as a form of boilerplate.
It's actually been my experience that the rate of null IANA
considerations sections that should have contained content appears to
be significantly lower than the set of missing IANA considerations
sections when one should have been included. Based on my perceptions
I do think this requirement is triggering some level of review. Thus
as an individual I support the requirement. I do not have rigorous
data to support my assertion.
That said, I agree that if there is a consensus to drop the
requirement we should do so.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf