Re: IANA considerations, was: [Gen-art] Gen-ART and OPS-Dir review of draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-10

On 01/20/2015 10:14 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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
This was a long debate approx. 10 years ago (as far as I remember).

The information about whether or not there are IANA considerations has 
to be easily available to IANA as part of IESG review.

The two places where it was reasonable to have it were (again, according 
to memory) in the I-D and in a cover page for the package - letting IANA 
read through the document in detail trying to figure out whether or not 
any IANA action was requested (the previous approac) was not thought 
workable any more.

Since we didn't have well defined cover page at the time, the arguments 
for putting the info in the I-D won out over the arguments for defining 
and managing a cover page.

It's been part of the I-D specification (and, as noted, idnits).
Please just do it this way until we have a decision to change it.


Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2015 12:06:53 UTC