Dave,
Here's my own take: It is empty bureaucracy. It is form, without content. It is additional effort, with no benefit. It is reasonable and necessary to require that documents contain important considerations. This is not accomplished by having pro forma sections lacking content.
I am not a big fan of a lot of the current boiler plate. I would be happy if I could submit drafts with <INSERT IETF STANDARD FIXED BOILERPLATE> and have it done automatically instead of having to figure out what the boiler plate text to add is.
I think the the IANA Considerations section is different as it's contents vary (unlike things like the copyright statement). The argument to requiring it even if there aren't any required IANA actions is similar to why protocols with NACKs don't work. The IANA needs to know in a positive manner that the author considered it. The lack of an IANA considerations section is ambiguous.
Bob _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf