Re: Updating the MIB Review guidelines - my comments part 1

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "C. M. Heard" <heard@pobox.com>
> To: "Mreview (E-mail)" <mreview@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:48 AM
> Subject: RE: Updating the MIB Review guidelines - my comments part 1
...
> Presumably, the debate that is going on is about whether the
> RFC Editor can unilaterally remove a null IANA Considerations
> section without the author's consent.  In that case the policy
> change (if one comes about) would be that such could be left
> in or taken out at the author's discretion.  I think the
> proposed text as it now stands would be compatible with
> such a policy.
>
> Maybe I am abusing my position as document editor to lobby to hard
> for my own position on this matter.  If people think so, then I
> will back off.  But I do have a very strong opinion (as, apparently,
> does the RFC Editor) that a null IANA considerations section has no
> place in an archival document, and I would like to see the review
> guidelines suggest (not require) that people to proceed in that
> way.  That is exactly what the proposed text does.
...

My $0.02: having an IANA considerations section that says there are
no IANA considerations is no worse (from a document perspective)
than the years where "Security Considerations" sections
almost invariably said "Security issues are not discussed in this memo."

Randy