> > Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to BCP > > Date: 2005-06-08 10:50 > > From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > .. RFC2119, when used, must be a normative reference. Likewise, > > > you'll need to add a "null" IANA considerations section. > > > > Agreed on the RFC 2119 reference. However, I do not believe there is any > > requirement for "null" IANA considerations sections. (A scan of recently > > published standards track RFCs turned up several that don't have such a section > > - 4022, 4015, etc.) Aren't we paddding out our documents with enough useless > > boilerplate already without adding yet another useless section to the mix? > The IETF Internet-Drafts page notes that "All Internet-Drafts that are > submitted to the IESG for consideration as RFCs must conform to the > requirements specified in the I-D Checklist". The current version of > the ID-Checklist clearly states: That's most unfortunate. What do we need to do to get this silly and counterproductive requirement removed? > I believe the requirements exist to ensure that draft authors give due > consideration to IANA Considerations and that IANA can readily determine > if some action is or is not required. The problem is that requiring such a section creates no such assurance. I've seen any number of documents with IANA considerations that initially failed to list all the considerations. And given past experience with "security considerations: none" sections, there is no reason to believe that requiring such a section will actually result in IANA considerations being properly called out. In fact I'd say there's a good chance it will cause obscure considerations to be missed. Like it or not, boilerplate is not now and never will be a useful subsitute for careful review. And as the pile of useless crap we require gets ever-larger it gets harder, not easier, to get that review. > Evidently (and unfortunately) the > IETF Secretariat apparently doesn't enforce that part of the ID-Checklist > rules. On the contrary, it is fortunate they are not enforcing it. > As the RFC Editor removes null sections, you won't find them in published > RFCs. But Internet-Drafts are REQUIRED to have them. Making it one more disincentive for contributors. This really needs to stop. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf