Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050609092203.046a1130@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 09:27:00 +0200
To: ietf@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <200506081359.20078.blilly@erols.com>
References: <42ut2e$2gut56@mx21.mrf.mail.rcn.net>
	<200506081359.20078.blilly@erols.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Re: IANA Considerations
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Dear Bruce,
you know what? I think it would be great to write a IANA obligations RFC. 
It would say that the IANA MUST maintain a list of all the obligations RFC 
authors should respect when writting the IANA considerations, and to 
document whatever additional information IANA may need (for example if a 
DoS might result from a possible misuse of what they ask and the proposed 
solutions).
jfc

At 19:59 08/06/2005, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> > Re: Last Call: 'Email Submission Between Independent Networks' to BCP
> >  Date: 2005-06-08 10:50
> >  From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
>
> > > .. RFC2119, when used, must be a normative reference.  Likewise,
> > > you'll need to add a "null" IANA considerations section.
> >
> > Agreed on the RFC 2119 reference. However, I do not believe there is any
> > requirement for "null" IANA considerations sections. (A scan of recently
> > published standards track RFCs turned up several that don't have such a 
> section
> > - 4022, 4015, etc.) Aren't we paddding out our documents with enough 
> useless
> > boilerplate already without adding yet another useless section to the mix?
>
>The IETF Internet-Drafts page notes that "All Internet-Drafts that are
>submitted to the IESG for consideration as RFCs must conform to the
>requirements specified in the I-D Checklist".  The current version of
>the ID-Checklist clearly states:
>
>The following are REQUIRED sections in all Internet-Drafts:
>[...]
>IANA Considerations
>A
>Must specify if IANA has to create a new registry or modify rules for
>an existing registry.
>B
>Must specify if the document requires IANA to assign or update values
>in an IANA registry before RFC publication.
>C
>See "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs"
>[RFC2434] and in some cases also "IANA Allocation Guidelines For Values
>In the Internet Protocol and Related Headers" [RFC2780]. In some case
>"Assigning Experimental and Testing Numbers Considered Useful" [RFC3692]
>may help as well.
>D
>If there is no action for IANA, the section should say that, e.g.,
>including something like "This document has no actions for IANA."
>
>And the RFC-Editor's "instructions to RFC Authors" (draft successor to
>RFC 2223, on hold) notes:
>       Current policy (not documented in [IANA98]) is to include an IANA
>       Considerations section always, even if it is "null", i.e., even if
>       there are no IANA considerations.  This is helpful to IANA.
>       However, the RFC Editor may remove any null IANA considerations
>       sections before publication.
>
>I believe the requirements exist to ensure that draft authors give due
>consideration to IANA Considerations and that IANA can readily determine
>if some action is or is not required.  Evidently (and unfortunately) the
>IETF Secretariat apparently doesn't enforce that part of the ID-Checklist
>rules.
>
>As the RFC Editor removes null sections, you won't find them in published
>RFCs.  But Internet-Drafts are REQUIRED to have them.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>Ietf@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf