Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Thomas Narten wrote: > >> Agreed. In my experience, the IANA does not want the I-D to contain a > >> section entitled "IANA Considerations" if there are no actions required > >> of the IANA. > > > > Your experience does not match what IANA has stated numerous > > times. Please see section 6.1 of > > draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-07.txt, which contains > > text that IANA has a large part in crafting. > By "my experience" I mean for example RFC 3922; during Auth48 or > thereabouts I was told that the IANA didn't want the document to include > an "IANA Considerations" section since there were no actions required of > the IANA. But perhaps that was a miscommunication. To clarify, what happens during AUTH48 is mostly between you and the RFC Editor. It's probably the RFC Editor that is calling for removal of the empty IANA Considerations section. Going back the the very first sentence quoted above, the specific question of what IANA wants to see in an _ID_ is that they prefer a clear indication of what it is they are supposed to do. An explicit "no IANA actions" statement in the ID is preferred to "no mention of IANA at all", as the latter increases the work for IANA to figure out what, if any, action it has. Note that IANA typicall reviews documents during the Last Call (or during the IESG Evaluation process), which happens prior to final RFC editing. Thomas _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf