Re: Required doc sections (Re: [saag] Next step on web phishing draft(dr

Thomas Narten wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter(_at_)stpeter(_dot_)im> writes:
>
> > Thomas Narten wrote:
> > > > Agreed. In my experience, the IANA does not want the I-D to contain a
> > > > section entitled "IANA Considerations" if there are no actions required
> > > > of the IANA.
> > > Your experience does not match what IANA has stated numerous
> > > times. Please see section 6.1 of
> > > draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt, which contains
> > > text that IANA has a large part in crafting.
> > By "my experience" I mean for example RFC 3922; during Auth48 or
> > thereabouts I was told that the IANA didn't want the document to include
> > an "IANA Considerations" section since there were no actions required of
> > the IANA. But perhaps that was a miscommunication.
> To clarify, what happens during AUTH48 is mostly between you and the
> RFC Editor. It's probably the RFC Editor that is calling for removal
> of the empty IANA Considerations section. Going back the the very
> first sentence quoted above, the specific question of what IANA wants
> to see in an _ID_ is that they prefer a clear indication of what it is
> they are supposed to do. An explicit "no IANA actions" statement in
> the ID is preferred to "no mention of IANA at all", as the latter
> increases the work for IANA to figure out what, if any, action it
> has. Note that IANA typicall reviews documents during the Last Call
> (or during the IESG Evaluation process), which happens prior to final
> RFC editing.
Thanks for the clarification. That seems like the right approach to me.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf