RE: Further discussion about IANA Considerations for MIBs

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Similar discussion is taking place on wgchairs mailing list.
Some people only want to do IANA COnsideratrions if there are some.
Others want them always, but removed at RFC-publications if empty
Some want them to always be in a doc, also in RFC.

And given all these various opinions....
The simplest rule seems to be: there MUST ALWAYS be a IANA Considerations
section...

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:dbharrington@comcast.net]
> Sent: vrijdag 4 juni 2004 13:51
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; 'C. M. Heard'
> Cc: 'Michelle S. Cotton'; 'Steve Conte'; 'RFC Editor'; 'Mreview
> (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: Further discussion about IANA Considerations for MIBs
> 
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>