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

Joe Touch touch at isi.edu
Mon Jun 2 09:25:05 PDT 2014

On 6/2/2014 3:51 AM, Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) wrote:
> On 5/30/14, 9:25 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>> Currently we then insist on calling the important ones "Normative
>> References".  Given the (primary) dictionary definition of
>> "normative" (A variant of "Of, relating to, or prescribing a norm or
>> standard"), this seems to be a misuse of language in at least some
>> informational documents - the ones that import other organization's
>> 'standards' could have "Normative References" but in ones that do not
>> define a standard it seems misplaced.

Not all standards are defined only in standards-track docs. Others are:
	- informative (often how de-facto standards are documented)
	- experimental

There are also documents that don't define standard protocols, but 
establish "standards" for operation or use - BCPs.

Thus, even using the most strict interpretation of "Normative", there's 
no clear correlation between document stream and the need - or lack of 
need - for a Normative reference section.


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list