RE: IANA considerations requirement in "AD Review of I-Ds" (http: //w ww.ietf.org/ID-nits.html)

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

> I do not think that my amendment does dimish the need for an IANA
> COnsiderations section if extensions are to be administered by IANA.

we may be talking past each other I am not sure

I am worried about the case where the intention is to not
have any extensions other than by revising the RFC - there should be
an IANA Considerations section that says that the IANA is to make no
registrations

i.e. I am focusing on your use of the term "if"

we have had too many cases of late where someone (often these
days another standards organization) wants to extend an IETF
protocol and assumes that the extension can just be registered
with the IANA - I think we need to make it clear in many
documents that the protocol (including MIB) can not be extened
in that way - i.e. an individual can not add another branch to 
an IETF MIB just by sending a registration request to the IANA


Scott