--On Wednesday, 06 July, 2005 15:23 -0700 Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> wrote: > *> harmful, and that the best way to insure coverage of IANA > issues is to have an *> explicit check for such things as > part of our review process. > Ned, > > As I expect you know, the IANA checks all documents at Last > Call time, and the RFC Editor checks them before publication, > for missing missed IANA actions. However, redundancy does not > seem to me to be a bad idea. Bob, as I expect you know, the IANA no longer has the staff skills to perform an in-depth analysis of a document to determine whether there are issues IANA needs to deal with. Yes, I think they try, but the whole purpose of this section was to move toward providing them better instructions and hints than "go do your own detective work". I'm grateful that the RFC Editor continues to make those checks, but it is in everyone's interest that the IANA actions be understood much earlier in the process, leaving the RFC Editor review as the safety net of last resort. That said, I think we should be paying careful attention to Bruce's implied suggestion about how template boilerplate-generators should be constructed. In terms of the checking process Ned asks for (and which I still believe is the right solution) there is a world of difference between a template that generates: IANA Considerations Nothing for IANA to do and one that generates IANA Considerations If you see this text, the author hasn't gotten around to thinking about this issue. john _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf