And this requirement is quite new. It would be unprecedented if it hadn't
triggered some level of initial review in these very early days. But wait
a couple of years for the new to wear off and people being people will
start to handle it as more boilerplate.
For anyone who was sleeping during the relevant Psych 101 lecture, this is
called the Hawthorne effect.
Damn. I knew there was a famous study that identified this effect, but I
couldn't remember the name.
Doing anything at all gets folk's attention.
Whether the thing, itself, has a real effect is a very separate issue.
The IANA Considerations form requirement creates attention on the matter of
IANA. But that does not mean that it carries any long-term focus on real IANA
issues, any more than the original, vacuous requirement for a Security
Considerations section resulted in good security considerations.
What improved the security considerations work was requiring that it be real.
Which in turn works because there are always security considerations - the
closest thing to valid empty security considerations section we have is one
that says "this entire document is about security". A section that simply says
"there are no security considerations here" is invalid on its face and
indicates insufficient review has been done.
The same isn't true of IANA considerations. It is perfectly valid for a
document not to have any, and in fact common. And that completely changes the
dynamics of the situation.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf