RE: Further discussion about IANA Considerations for MIBs

["David Harrington" <dbharrington@comcast.net>]

Hi,

I think it best to remove unnecessary "boilerplate" text from the mib
documents. We seem to be adding tremendous amounts of boilerplate material
to our documents, and generating CLRs about having to include and edit all
the boilerplates. 

These CLRs may make the publication process easier for the RFC-editor and
IANA, but it makes the editing job much harder, and it makes the job of
recruiting editors and finalizing documents much much harder. Hopefully, the
editor and RFC-editor and IANA comprise a very small percentage of the
people who will read the standard. 

Maybe we should focus on making it easier for readers to find the salient
material amidst all the boilerplate, by reducing the amount of boilerplate
that is published.

My $.02

Dave Harrington
dbharrington@comcast.net
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-mreview@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 5:59 AM
> To: C. M. Heard; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Michelle S. Cotton; Steve Conte; RFC Editor; Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Further discussion about IANA Considerations for MIBs
> 
> > As for the actual requirement, I saw this an I-D that was posted
> > today:
> > 
> >     This document makes no request of IANA.
> > 
> >     Note to RFC Editor: this section may be removed on publication
> >     as an RFC.
> > 
> > If left to my own devices, that is what I would tell 
> authors to do in 
> > such cases.  Does anyone disagree?  If not, that's how I will draft 
> > the new text.
> > 
> I think the above is OK (I'll leave it to IANA and/or 
> RFC-Editor to give final word on that), but at the other 
> hand, I see no harm if the text is just left in the RFC. It 
> would be less text in I-D and less work for RFC-Editor in 
> publication process.
> 
> Bert
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Mike
> > 
> 
>