--On Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 15:23 -0700 Bob Braden
*> harmful, and that the best way to insure coverage of IANA
issues is to have an *> explicit check for such things as
part of our review process.
As I expect you know, the IANA checks all documents at Last
Call time, and the RFC Editor checks them before publication,
for missing missed IANA actions. However, redundancy does not
seem to me to be a bad idea.
Bob, as I expect you know, the IANA no longer has the staff
skills to perform an in-depth analysis of a document to
determine whether there are issues IANA needs to deal with.
Yes, I think they try, but the whole purpose of this section was
to move toward providing them better instructions and hints than
"go do your own detective work". I'm grateful that the RFC
Editor continues to make those checks, but it is in everyone's
interest that the IANA actions be understood much earlier in the
process, leaving the RFC Editor review as the safety net of last
That said, I think we should be paying careful attention to
Bruce's implied suggestion about how template
boilerplate-generators should be constructed. In terms of the
checking process Ned asks for (and which I still believe is the
right solution) there is a world of difference between a
template that generates:
Nothing for IANA to do
and one that generates
If you see this text, the author hasn't gotten around
to thinking about this issue.
Ietf mailing list