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.
Unfortunately so is the presence of an empty IANA considerations section - you cannot tell the difference between such a section that was arrived as as a result of careful review of the draft and one that was simply created as a form of boilerplate. And that's why the costs of requiring null IANA consideratiosn sections outweigh the benefits. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf