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

Michael Richardson mcr+ietf at sandelman.ca
Fri May 30 11:04:05 PDT 2014


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've always understood that if you don't read the normative references,
you likely won't understand the specification.  If you skip the informative
ones, no big deal.

It's why I hate having normative references which are behind paywalls, etc.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF at sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 481 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20140530/50d5642c/attachment.sig>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list