Re: IANA Considerations

Please see RFC 2434 = BCP 26

   Brian


JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> Dear Bruce,
> 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 solutions).
> jfc
>
> 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 section
> > > - 4022, 4015, etc.) Aren't we paddding out our documents with enough 
> > useless
> > > 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:
> > [...]
> > IANA Considerations
> > A
> > Must specify if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules for
> > an existing registry.
> > B
> > Must specify if the document requires IANA to assign or update values
> > in an IANA registry before RFC publication.
> > C
> > 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.
> > D
> > 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
> > rules.
> >
> > 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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf