[rfc-i] Titles for divided reference sections in non-standards track documents
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Fri May 30 13:30:04 PDT 2014
On 2014-05-30 18:25, Elwyn Davies 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
What's the problem with that? Seriously?
Best regards, Julian
More information about the rfc-interest