Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I agree careful reviews are necessary. What I find surprising is your logic, which seems to say: IANA considerations sections in IDs are not sufficient, therefore they are useless (or worse). Is that really what you are advocating? What exactly is it that you think should be done (in addition to careful reviews) that would help reduce the odds that the careful review find issues with the IANA instructions (or lack thereof)? Note that having IC sections is all about improving the odds that they contain the Right Thing before the document is approved by the IESG. In my mind that means: 1) IANA reviews an (essentially) final version, to be sure what it says is consistent with their understanding of what needs to be carried out. But, IANA does this review during Last Call. Thus, the IC section really needs to be complete _before_ the full IETF review. 2) Well, the Shepherding AD can do the "careful review" during the AD review phase, but there is already plenty of pressure to skimp on the AD review in order to send a document the WG says is finished to IETF LC ASAP. I.e., to get the IETF LC started and "fix any issues that come up later". Plus, in my experience, plenty of IC issues are caught by ADs other than the shepherding AD. So relying on them to catch all such issues is far from ideal. 3) Voila, have a checklist item that alerts WGs to things they should take steps to make sure their documents have already addressed prior to advancing a document out of the WG. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf