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

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

On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> > > There is actually debate in IESG if RFC-Editor can just remove
> > > such IANA considerations section. And anyway... we will never
> > > know how policy changes over time. So if possible I like to be
> > > silent on it. But it is just a personal opinion.
> > 
> > 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 point was that I believe I am seeing consensus forming in
> IESG to keep it in RFCs.

That's different.

> But that is still debated, and once we get there we may have
> to go through a debate with Bob/RFC-ed. 
> So what will happen in the end is not clear.

One thing that I DO hope is that the community gets an opportunity
to comment on this before the fact, instead of finding out about
it afterward (like with the changes in ID-Checklist, which seem to
have take a number of people by surprise).  I would also hope that
if we have to live with yet more boilerplate in our documents a
good reason will be offered for doing so.  As I said before, I
understand why we need some instructions for the IANA.  I do NOT
understand why those instructions should be required to be published
in an archival document.  We don't publish editors notes and I-D
change histories.

> Now RFC-Ed has claimed they will remove empty statements, so as long
> as there is no IESG/IETF mandated policy to keep them they will get
> removed and the things you prefer will happen.
> 
> By leaving the text "may be removed" or "should be removed" out of the
> guideline (and text in I-Ds), you get what you want, and this doc
> will still be valid if IESG/IETF change policy.
> 
> I do have some sympathy for your "if author agrees/disagrees" argument
> also.

OK, I will recraft the text.

Mike