Bruce Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless I misunderstood your earlier comments, Ned, you suggested that the
> requirement should be dropped. Which would presumably mean that the idnits
> check against that requirement would be dropped, 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.
Actually, the original reason for adding this was to avoid the
observed-in-practice behavior on IESG telechats:
Q: Does this document have an IANA issues?
A: um, I dunno, I can't remember now (since this is one of many
documents)
A non-existant IANA Considerations section is taken as a flag that
maybe there are, but they haven't been called out. Sure, in some
cases, it's obvious there are no IANA issues, and the IESG would just
approve the document. But for any half-way long technical document,
making such determinations is non-trivial. Really!
So, if one leaves out the IANA considerations section, authors run the
risk that their document will be delayed in the IESG while
clarification is obtained about whether there are IANA issues.
I continue to be mystified by the overall thrust of much of this
thread when the implication of not having an IANA considerations
section is an increased probability of needless delay, something I
thought the community wanted to avoid.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
