At 8:15 PM +0200 7/11/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:15 PM +0200 7/6/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
RFC 2434 doesn't discuss null IANA sections at all. RFC2434bis does discuss
them, and we will need to form consensus about whether the RFC Editor is
required to retain them, as we discuss RFC2434bis.
I don't see any discussion of the RFC Editor retaining null IANA
sections in RFC2434bis, which is good. It is a completely silly
idea. An RFC should contain useful, long-lasting information. The
fact that a particular document didn't require IANA action is not
useful unless it is surprising, and if it is surprising, the
section should not be null.
I respectfully disagree. I think that someone implementing or deploying a
given specification may well wonder whether any IANA-assigned values
are relevant, and the absence of a null section in an RFC doesn't help
with that.
But neither does a section that says "there are no new values
registered". The presence of a null section only says "this document
didn't cause any new registrations by its publication". A section
that says "here are the IANA registries that are relevant to this
document" would be useful to that implementer. We have never tried
that, and I suspect it would take a lot of energy and thinking to do
so.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf