RE: Further discussion about IANA Considerations for MIBs

[Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>]

  *> > 
  *> >     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,
  *> > 

Bert,

As we have often said in the past, the RFC Editor dislikes putting dumb
(technical term) things into archival documents.  Who will care in
2006, much less 2015, that there was no IANA request in this document?
So it has been our practice to remove "No IANA Request" sections before
final publication, and we are happy to have Mike left to his own
devices here.

Bob Braden for the RFC Editor