[rfc-i] Titles for divided reference sections in non-standards track documents
elwynd at folly.org.uk
Fri May 30 09:25:06 PDT 2014
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.
More information about the rfc-interest