> Date: 2005-07-06 14:43
> From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 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.
I can't speak for others, but
1. if a draft has no IANA considerations section, idnits will so indicate
(but see below), and that's a warning sign to check -- if idnits is run.
Of course, one would expect conscientious authors/editors to
a) abide by the guidelines (which is where the MUST include an IANA
considerations section is specified)
b) check against the I-D Checklist
c) run idnits
but obviously some authors/editors do not do so, and not all reviewers
check vs. the Checklist and/or run idnits
2. if a draft has a "no IANA considerations" text, that certainly prompts
this reviewer to check that statement for accuracy
At the moment (see below), that means that if there is no IANA
considerations section at all, idnits will flag that fact and if there
is such a section it will be reviewed; either way *seems* to result in
review of the draft w.r.t. IANA considerations.
> > I suppose. That said, if IANA considerations was *not* built into the
> > boilerplate, it would have a high likelihood of being omitted.
>
> Which would then be noted on checklist review, causing a fairly careful check
> to be made to see if there really aren't any considerations to be listed in
> such a section.
Unless I misunderstood your earlier comments, Ned, you suggested that the
requirement should be dropped. Which would presumably mean that the idnits
check against that requirement would be dropped, and then there would be
the very real possibility, nay probability, that a draft with no IANA
considerations section would get through review even if there is something
that should be addressed by IANA. And that is precisely why several
people have been advocating the rule, namely that it prompts review of
the issue (whether or not a particular author/editor adheres to the rule).
Indeed, although BCP 18 (RFC 2277, Frank) recommends an internationalization
considerations section, many documents do not include one even where
internationalization is an issue. If the IETF feels that
internationalization is an important issue, a similar guideline prompting
authors/editors to include, and reviewers to review such a section might
be worth adding. That is another matter, as is whether or not a published
RFC should contain a null internationalization considerations section.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf