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

Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) rse at rfc-editor.org
Tue Aug 26 08:57:49 PDT 2014

On 8/24/14, 10:07 PM, 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.

You're right.  It's not an editorial function; this isn't an editor's
decision.  That's why I'm not trying to own the draft.  I'm just saying
it would be very nice, especially as I develop style and format
guidance, to have these definitions clearly documented.  The RFC Series
as a whole would be better if these concepts were treated consistently
across documents and streams.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list