On Wed June 8 2005 14:30, Ned Freed wrote:
> > 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:
[IANA Considerations section is REQUIRED]
> That's most unfortunate. What do we need to do to get this silly and
> counterproductive requirement removed?
(pessimist hat on)
Nothing. Just ignore it; everybody does. The rule, such as it is, isn't
enforced.
(pessimist hat off)
I think "counterproductive" is at best quite a stretch.
> The problem is that requiring such a section creates no such assurance.
Of course. But it does encourage thought (both by authors/editors and
reviewers). Surely you're not suggesting that authors, editors, and
reviewers should ignore IANA considerations.
The problem (N.B. pessimist hat is off) is that we now have the worst
of all possible situations:
o The rule exists in some random documents buried on some web
sites, and the documents have no status as RFC or BCP; as far as
I can tell there are no immediate plans to change that (one of the
documents is an Internet-Draft which is now nearly 11 months old)
o BCP 14 language is used with a normative reference to BCP 14,
implying that this is a matter taken seriously; the document
using that language comes from the IESG, but as noted above has no
standing as BCP
o Although it is expressed as REQUIRED, and:
i. it is referenced either directly or indirectly from several places
ii. there exist tools (e.g. idnits) which quickly and accurately
determines if the requirement is met
the rule is not enforced (or is at best selectively enforced)
These things are at odds (e.g. there is little point in a requirement,
expressed in strong terms (but in somewhat obscure documents with no
official standing) which is ignored), yet are self-reinforcing (if the
rule isn't enforced, it's hardly surprising that authors and editors
ignore it, nor is it surprising that some IETFers seem to be unaware
of requirements in documents that have no standing and are hidden in
obscure places).
If the IESG really doesn't care, it could indicate so consistently
by:
1. reissuing the guidelines without BCP 14 language and burying the
document deeper on the IETF web site; keep the document unofficial,
make random changes at random times, and remove all version indications
(or further obscure those indications by making the gray text on the
gray background in the current HTML-only document even lower contrast
and smaller size, and/or use an uglier markup language)
2. keep the 2223bis draft in limbo for a few more years and/or ask the
RFC Editor to elide the part about a null IANA Considerations
section
[obviously, some of the comments immediately above are tongue-in-cheek]
Conversely, if the IESG does regard the matter as important, it could:
1. direct the IETF Secretariat to enforce the rule (given the fact that
idnits already checks for it, as well as checking for IPR boilerplate
issues -- which the Secretariat does enforce with an iron fist -- I
don't buy the argument that checking would impose an inordinate cost.
In fact I suspect that the incremental cost would be smaller than that
of any instrumentation that might be applied to measure that cost)
2. publish the guidelines as BCP and move forward on the 2223bis draft
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf