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

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Fri May 30 15:48:59 PDT 2014


I have learned to interpret "Normative" references in all our 
specifications as meaning "needing to be understood to understand (or 
implement, or similar usage) this RFC."  That seems to apply equally 
well as a meaning for references in Informational or Experimental documents.

Sorry, not seeing the problem,
Joel

On 5/30/14, 6:39 PM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>
> A large proportion of informational documents do not describe protocols.  As I said some do and normative would be appropriate there.
>
> /Elwyn
>
>
> Sent from my ASUS Pad
>
> Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-05-30 23:00, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>>> Seriously?  Well, it's misleading because it has a different meaning.  Its good to have precision.
>>
>> I disagree that it has a different meaning. Informative and Experimental
>> RFCs still describe protocols, even if we don't call them "IETF
>> standards". These protocols have normative parts, no?
>>
>>> We got normative by default after we stopped requiring undivided references in informational documents.
>>>
>>> /Elwyn
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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