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. 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". > > 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. > > 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. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf