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

Donald Eastlake d3e3e3 at gmail.com
Fri May 30 09:57:11 PDT 2014

I see no reason for a change. There is some virtual in uniformity so
that if a document is reclassified, sections don't have to be
re-named. If there are no references that should be included in a
Normative References section, that section can just say "(none)",
which is what I prefer, or be omitted.

 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 at gmail.com

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Elwyn Davies <elwynd at folly.org.uk> wrote:
> Hi.
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Elwyn
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list