round 3
At 12:46 PM 10/14/2006 +0900, Lars Eggert wrote:
On Oct 11, 2006, at 5:57, Michael Tuexen wrote:
Section 5., paragraph 3:
> The reference to sctp-parameters [3] should be removed
from the
> "Normative References" section after the IANA section has
been
> removed.
Why would the IANA section be removed?
This section is written like the one for SCTP-AUTH which was
suggested by
James. I thought, that the IANA section gets deleted when IANA has
done
its job. Isn't that right? James?
I believe stating where in IANA new parameters ought to go is a good thing
- as it makes their job easier by them not having to guess where it is
authors had in mind to register something, as I've been told many many
times as a doc author (Allison trained me well). There have been many a
confusing time between IANA folks, ADs, shaephards and authors as to what
has been intended and what was expected in the old Transport area,
specifically around SIP, and RSVP vs. COPS parameters. Writing an IANA
section that simulates how the new parameters will appear in IANA has
always gone over well with me (once I learned to do it this way).
I passed this advice along to Michael, and he promptly turned around a
version of SCTP-AUTH that way (in a day, if I remember correctly).
The IANA section customarily gets removed when all it has is "this
document requires no IANA actions", purely to increase readability.
Documents that require IANA actions do keep the section when published.
The same is true for SCTP-AUTH. I hadn't realized that has the same
problem and I didn't see an email on the list about this, but the
IANA section must remain in place there, too.
Lars
--
Lars Eggert NEC Network Laboratories
_______________________________________________
pmtud mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmtud
