[rfc-i] what about draft-peterson-informational-normativity ?

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Wed Aug 20 12:50:54 PDT 2014

On 8/20/14, 12:34 PM, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> When I wrote this (terrifyingly seven years ago now), this was a bit of a
> pain point for us on the IESG, as we were seeing a lot of needless
> normative references and the down ref procedures were relatively new and
> exotic.
> The reaction, if I recall, was that this wasn't enough of a problem for
> the community as a whole for it to rise above a "meh." No one expressed
> any grievances with content (albeit a few people found the snarky
> "informational-normativity" draft title unhelpful), but there was no fire
> under it.
> If this would solve some problem today, I could certainly reissue the
> draft, and fix the examples that seem to have been swallowed in malformed
> CDATAs or something. But otherwise I'm happy to let it rest eternally in
> the graveyard of "meh."

I don't know about general community appetite, but I can certainly
attest that this would make my life as RSE easier if I had acceptable
definitions to the terms you clarify in the draft.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list