> Ned> Unfortunately so is the presence of an empty IANA > Ned> considerations section - you cannot tell the difference > Ned> between such a section that was arrived as as a result of > Ned> careful review of the draft and one that was simply created > Ned> as a form of boilerplate. > It's actually been my experience that the rate of null IANA > considerations sections that should have contained content appears to > be significantly lower than the set of missing IANA considerations > sections when one should have been included. Based on my perceptions > I do think this requirement is triggering some level of review. Hardly a ringing endorsement... And this requirement is quite new. It would be unprecedented if it hadn't triggered some level of initial review in these very early days. But wait a couple of years for the new to wear off and people being people will start to handle it as more boilerplate. > Thus > as an individual I support the requirement. I do not have rigorous > data to support my assertion. Useful data won't be available for several years at least. Which is why it so surprising - and ominous - that the problem has already arisen in at least one document. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf