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