Re: I-D ACTION:draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-02.txt

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> These are personal comments. I am also the shepherding AD for
> this draft.

I have a request for the authors and the shepherding AD: please
review Section 3.5 of <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-04.txt>,
which provides guidelines on how to write and IANA Considerations
section in a MIB document, and bring to my attention any
inconsistencies with draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis.
Note that <draft-ietf-ops-mib-review-guidelines-04.txt> has been
approved as a BCP and is in the RFC Editor's queue;  it would not be
good to have an inconsistency.  I didn't see any myself, but I would
like for more eyeballs to have a look.

> >5.1.  When There Are No IANA Actions
> >
> >   Before an Internet-Draft can be published as an RFC, IANA needs to
> >   know what actions (if any) it needs to perform. Experience has shown
> >   that it is not always immediately obvious whether a document has no
> >   IANA actions, without reviewing a document in some detail. In order
> >   to make it clear to IANA that it has no actions to perform (and that
> >   the author has consciously made such a determination!), such
> >   documents should include an IANA Considerations section that states:
> >
> >      This document has no IANA Actions.
> 
> Suggest adding:
> 
>   This statement, or an equivalent form of words, must only be inserted
>   after the WG or individual submitter has carefully verified it to be true.
> 
>   In some cases, the absence of IANA-assigned values may be considered
>   valuable information for future readers; in other cases it may be
>   considered of no value once the document has been approved, and may be
>   removed before archival publication. This choice should be made clear
>   in the draft, for example by including a sentence such as
> 
>       [RFC Editor: please remove this section prior to publication.]
>   or
> 
>       [RFC Editor: please do not remove this section.]

I support this change.

First, it makes clear (by the phrase "or an equivalent form of words")
that we are not going to require that authors copy the words verbatim.
That's good.

Second, given the lack of consensus we have on whether or not null
IANA Considerations sections should remain in a published RFC,
leaving the decision in the hands of the of the people responsible
for the document seems to me to be the right way to go.

Mike Heard

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf