[rfc-i] Titles for divided reference sections in non-standards track documents

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Jun 2 10:02:07 PDT 2014


On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Elwyn Davies <elwynd at folly.org.uk> wrote:
> The argument about whether informational and experimental documents (and
> maybe BCPs) are allowed to have their references divided into important
> ones that you need to read and some more peripheral ones has settled on
> allowing two sections, it seems.
>
> Currently we then insist on calling the important ones "Normative
> References".  Given the (primary) dictionary definition of
> "normative" (A variant of "Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or
> standard"), this seems to be a misuse of language in at least some
> informational documents - the ones that import other organization's
> 'standards' could have "Normative References" but in ones that do not
> define a standard it seems misplaced.
>
> I suggest that we allow the use of "Key References" and "Additional
> References" as an alternative where it is more appropriate.

-1

I see no reason to do this.  And I find "Key" to be a very poor
substitute for Normative.

I see no reason not to allow a single References section with
arbitrary sub-sections in Informational and Experimental track
documents, but in all others (for existing tracks anyways) IMO we
should require that all references sections be either Normative
References, Informative References, or sub-sections of either of
those.

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list