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

Elwyn Davies elwynd at folly.org.uk
Fri May 30 16:35:07 PDT 2014


On Fri, 2014-05-30 at 18:48 -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 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

With my Gen-art hat on, I would say that the fact that IETF insiders
understand why a non-standards track document has a "Normative
References" doesn't help people who are picking up documents with little
or no prior exposure to IETF culture.

A small change to make our documents more user friendly.

/Elwyn
  
> 
> 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