Ned Freed wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Ned Freed wrote:
>> What exactly is it that you
>> think should be done (in addition to careful reviews) that would help
>> reduce the odds that the careful review find issues with the IANA
>> instructions (or lack thereof)?
>
> Simple: The requirement that an IANA considerations section be
included in RFC
> not containing any IANA actions needs to be dropped. I have been
extremely
> clear ahout this.
It's good, because this is already the case. Even if you're required
to add a "null" IANA considerations section in the internet-drafts
when being sent to the IESG, the RFC-editor removes the IANA
considerations section completely if it doesn't have any real content.
Anything else?
It is the requirement that Internet Drafts always contain IANA
considerations sections that has to go.
Ned, you have not produced any argument for this position, and since
the absence of such a section does not imply the absence of IANA
considerations, your logic continues to escape me.
The argument for the mandatory presence of such a section is that
it increases the probability that any IANA considerations have been
identified.
What the RFC Editor does after
document
approval is not the issue here.
Not for you, maybe, but it is for me.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf