- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:14:40 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Black, David" <david.black@emc.com>
- CC: "fenix@google.com" <fenix@google.com>, "herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr" <herve.ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "General Area Review Team (gen-art@ietf.org)" <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2015-01-20 09:22, Martin Thomson wrote: > ... >> idnits complained that it couldn't find an IANA Considerations >> section. Please add an empty one (stating that there are no IANA >> Considerations) if/when the draft is revised. > > I tend to think that absence of "IANA Considerations" and a section > with "This document has no IANA actions." should be treated as > precisely equivalent. But I guess that ship sailed already. > ... Having no "IANA Considerations" causes additional work because multiple parties will have to check whether there's indeed nothing to consider, or whether the authors just forgot to think about these. It causes unneeded friction and delays. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 09:15:19 UTC