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

Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 19:27:47 PDT 2014

On 25/08/2014 17:07, Larry Masinter 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.

Yes, but since the splitting of references occurs in IRTF and
Independent stream documents as well as the IETF stream, a
common understanding of the question is needed. This is
typically something that comes up during editing or AUTH48,
although IMNSHO it should have been settled much earlier.


> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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