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.
Unfortunately so is the presence of an empty IANA considerations section - you
cannot tell the difference between such a section that was arrived as as a
result of careful review of the draft and one that was simply created as a form
of boilerplate.
And that's why the costs of requiring null IANA consideratiosn sections
outweigh the benefits.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf