> From where I sat, the problem was trying to ensure that a WG thought > about an issue. Neither mandatory material nor checkoff boxes > accomplish that, but I think the former is often more useful because > material in an I-D is visible to the entire WG. I disagree completely and think you have this exactly backwards. Mandatory material would only help if people actually think about what goes in it - which they don't. Rather, they think about it as "another something we have to do to get past the IESG" and deal with it by spending as little time on it as possible. Even worse, the presence of a section that says "these are all the IANA considerations" or "there are no IANA considerations here" is likely to cause reviewers to assume that someone has already checked for IANA actions. This will lead to more omissions, not less. And in fact there has already been at least one example of this happening. The document draft-ietf-lemonade-mms-mapping-04.txt is now in the RFC Editor's queue. It's IANA considerations section says "no IANA actions". Alas, the document defines any number of new header fields that need to be placed in the appropriate header regsitry. That IANA considerations section sure helped a lot, didn't it? Like it or not, careful reviews and review checklists, while quited flawed in their own right, are the best tool we have. When I was on the IESG I had my own private review checklist; it was the only thing I found that worked. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf