RE: Further discussion about IANA Considerations for MIBs

["C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>]

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, David Harrington wrote:
dbh> I think it best to remove unnecessary "boilerplate" text from
dbh> the mib documents. We seem to be adding tremendous amounts of
dbh> boilerplate material to our documents, and generating CLRs about
dbh> having to include and edit all the boilerplates.
...
dbh> Maybe we should focus on making it easier for readers to find
dbh> the salient material amidst all the boilerplate, by reducing the
dbh> amount of boilerplate that is published.

Those, precisely, are my own thoughts on this matter.  I do
understand why we need to put very explicit instructions in our
Internet-Drafts, but I am very much opposed to having unnecessary
material in published RFCs.  What value is provided to the reader of
an RFC in being told that the draft leading to that RFC did not make
any requests of the IANA?

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Michelle S. Cotton wrote:
msc> This text looks OK to me, whether it be removed or it 
msc> stays.  As long as we know there is nothing for us to
msc> do once the document is approved.  

OK.  In the absence of objections from the RFC Editor, the updated
MIB review guidelines text will will allow an IANA Considerations
section saying that the IANA doesn't have to do anything to be
removed prior to publication.

Thanks,

Mike