-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ned Freed wrote: >> On Jul 6, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> > RFC 2434 doesn't discuss null IANA sections at all. RFC2434bis does >> > discuss them, and we will need to form consensus about whether the RFC >> > Editor is required to retain them, as we discuss RFC2434bis. Which we >> > need to do fairly soon. > > >> In my "new internet draft" template, I have some stock text, which I >> change in the event that I actually need to assign a number to >> something or create a registry. It reads: > > >> <section anchor="IANA" title="IANA Considerations"> >> <t>This document makes no request of the IANA.</t> >> <t>Note to RFC Editor: in the process assigning numbers and building >> IANA registries prior to publication, this section will have served its >> purpose. It may therefore be removed upon publication as an RFC.</t> >> </section> > > > This is exactly what I predicted would happen - the IANA considerations > section > has now become part of the boilerplate in at least one I-D template. > (Actually > make that two - I put in in my own equivalent template some time back.) > > This opens the door to the author forgetting to check and the various > reviewers assuming the prsence of the sections means a check was done. The goal of putting it in the template is to encourage it be addressed, rather than forgotten altogether. However, I'm not at all in favor of requirements to IDs that are added ad-hoc; until this actually makes it into an RFC as a formal requirement, it won't be in the word template I manage. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCzDwAE5f5cImnZrsRAhwkAJ49KjDTN3ATzGNvm5EtmvKL6fB1qwCeMWp5 py3O+Dbud7Ic9tGUnNECs58= =P6UI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf