> 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.
Which is all that should be done.
> 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".
Then by all means only issue the warning when in "let's find out what
needs to be reviewed mode".
> > > 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.
Early indications are that it is already having the opposite effect.
> > > 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.
I disagree completely. And I believe that further disucssion of this
is pointless, so this will be my final note on the topic.
Ned
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
