> On Thu July 7 2005 15:32, Ned Freed wrote: > > I have never suggested that the requirment for an IANA considerations section > > in documents that contain IANA considerations be dropped. > The specific requirement is for the presence of a section in an I-D > presented for publication as an RFC even in the case that there are > no IANA actions. > > > 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. > idnits generates a warning because there is a requirement for such a > section. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that an automated > tool will be able to determine whether or not IANA actions would be > required; it is easy to determine whether or not a section is > present. Which is all that should be done. > If the unconditional requirement for a section goes away, > I would expect the test to go away, or to at least require some > non-default option to be specified to enable it. Otherwise it will > appear when there are in fact no IANA actions and then it will be > treated as noise, like the fabled boy who cried "wolf". Then by all means only issue the warning when in "let's find out what needs to be reviewed mode". > > > 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. > The only way to tell for sure is to let the experiment run its course. Early indications are that it is already having 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. > Not boilerplate, a reminder for authors/editors to consider the issue, and > the remainder simply don't follow. I disagree completely. And I believe that further disucssion of this is pointless, so this will be my final note on the topic. Ned _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf