> That said, I think we should be paying careful attention to
> Bruce's implied suggestion about how template
> boilerplate-generators should be constructed. In terms of the
> checking process Ned asks for (and which I still believe is the
> right solution) there is a world of difference between a
> template that generates:
> IANA Considerations
> Nothing for IANA to do
> and one that generates
> IANA Considerations
> If you see this text, the author hasn't gotten around
> to thinking about this issue.
As I said in a previous response, this may help a little, but not nearly as
much as it might first appear. However, it actually suggests an alternative
approach: FORBID the inclusion of an IANA considerations section until the
document is ready for general public review, then REQUIRE that one be inserted
as part of the review.
The problem with this approach is that it isn't really compatible with our
processes - there are various paths documents take and various review points,
making the selection of the right time for this to happen rather difficult. But
perhaps this is just another facet of our more general problem that all too
often documents end up in front of the IESG without having undergone sufficient
review. If we fix that, we might well make this whole "require empty IANA
considerations" nonsense moot.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
