> > > 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. I have never suggested that the requirment for an IANA considerations section in documents that contain IANA considerations be dropped. Nor have I ever suggested that review for IANA considerations be dropped. On the contrary, such review is essential. > Which would presumably mean that the idnits > check against that requirement would be dropped, On the contrary, it is important that automated tools warn that such sections are missing. This warning should not prevent a document from being last called, however. > 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. Doesn't follow. > 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). I disagree. I think it will over time come to have exactly the opposite effect. > 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. Sigh. More boilerplate BS, more unnecessary nonsense, more disincentives for authors, less and lower quality review, and fewer and poorer documents. This is absolutely the wrong path for us to be on. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf