I suppose. That said, if IANA considerations was *not* built into the
boilerplate, it would have a high likelihood of being omitted.
Which would then be noted on checklist review, causing a fairly careful
check
to be made to see if there really aren't any considerations to be listed in
such a section.
Unless I misunderstood your earlier comments, Ned, you suggested that the
requirement should be dropped.
I have never suggested that the requirment for an IANA considerations section
in documents that contain IANA considerations be dropped. Nor have I ever
suggested that review for IANA considerations be dropped. On the contrary, such
review is essential.
Which would presumably mean that the idnits
check against that requirement would be dropped,
On the contrary, it is important that automated tools warn that such sections
are missing. This warning should not prevent a document from being last called,
however.
and then there would be
the very real possibility, nay probability, that a draft with no IANA
considerations section would get through review even if there is something
that should be addressed by IANA.
Doesn't follow.
And that is precisely why several
people have been advocating the rule, namely that it prompts review of
the issue (whether or not a particular author/editor adheres to the rule).
I disagree. I think it will over time come to have exactly the opposite effect.
Indeed, although BCP 18 (RFC 2277, Frank) recommends an internationalization
considerations section, many documents do not include one even where
internationalization is an issue. If the IETF feels that
internationalization is an important issue, a similar guideline prompting
authors/editors to include, and reviewers to review such a section might
be worth adding. That is another matter, as is whether or not a published
RFC should contain a null internationalization considerations section.
Sigh. More boilerplate BS, more unnecessary nonsense, more disincentives for
authors, less and lower quality review, and fewer and poorer documents.
This is absolutely the wrong path for us to be on.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf