Re: IANA Considerations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 8:15 PM +0200 7/11/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:15 PM +0200 7/6/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

RFC 2434 doesn't discuss null IANA sections at all. RFC2434bis does discuss
them, and we will need to form consensus about whether the RFC Editor is
required to retain them, as we discuss RFC2434bis.

I don't see any discussion of the RFC Editor retaining null IANA sections in RFC2434bis, which is good. It is a completely silly idea. An RFC should contain useful, long-lasting information. The fact that a particular document didn't require IANA action is not useful unless it is surprising, and if it is surprising, the section should not be null.

I respectfully disagree. I think that someone implementing or deploying a
given specification may well wonder whether any IANA-assigned values
are relevant, and the absence of a null section in an RFC doesn't help
with that.

But neither does a section that says "there are no new values registered". The presence of a null section only says "this document didn't cause any new registrations by its publication". A section that says "here are the IANA registries that are relevant to this document" would be useful to that implementer. We have never tried that, and I suspect it would take a lot of energy and thinking to do so.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

_______________________________________________

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

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]