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

Peterson, Jon jon.peterson at neustar.biz
Mon Aug 25 10:54:25 PDT 2014

In fairness, the objective of this draft was not to change our
relationship to other standards bodies. It was to eliminate confusion
among authors and evaluators of IETF documents about the use of normative
language, which ultimately might clarify matters for the RFC Editor, but
at the time was selfishly written to make the IESG's life easier.

And while the IETF will not collapse for want of this document, I would
observe that in the years since I wrote it, I haven't noticed any
reduction in the use of RFC2119 language in requirements statements
intended to guide future specifications, say. Those are the sorts of
confusions I hoped it could address.

Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.

On 8/24/14, 10:07 PM, "Larry Masinter" <masinter at adobe.com> wrote:

>The standards for the Internet are interrelated documents from many
>different SDOs, so even if the IETF had precise definitions, it wouldn't
>help when you got to down-references to living standards.
>But mainly:
>> 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.
>The RSE shouldn't be in charge of judging applicability of the terms in
>the draft. That it makes your life hard is evidence that this isn't an
>editorial function.
>rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list