Better yet would be late binding: <INSERT LATEST IETF STANDARD FIXED BOILERPLATE>. - Ralph On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 15:28 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote: > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf