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

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Fri May 30 14:00:19 PDT 2014

Seriously?  Well, it's misleading because it has a different meaning.  Its good to have precision.

We got normative by default after we stopped requiring undivided references in informational documents.


Sent from my ASUS Pad

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

>On 2014-05-30 18:25, Elwyn Davies 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
> > ...
>What's the problem with that? Seriously?
>Best regards, Julian

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list