[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Normative/Informative References

To: Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Normative/Informative References
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 07:56:38 -0500
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, randy@psg.com
Delivery-date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 04:59:31 -0800
Envelope-to: iesg-hack@psg.com
In-reply-to: Message from Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> of "Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:22:58 EST." <200212311822.gBVIMw44019518@newdev.harvard.edu>
List-help: <mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: <iesg.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:iesg@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,<mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iesg>,<mailto:iesg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>

> but other folk (including Braden) do not see the logic in
> a normative reference in an informative document

Interestingly enough, the current wording the RFC editor came up with
doesn't seem to distinguish between standards and non-standards
track. It seems to say all RFCs should do the split. That is not my
recollection of where we ended up (though I think I'd prefer it on the
whole, since so many people seem to just not want to do the split if
its not *required*), so I'd welcome being pointed to more definitive
words. I just looked at draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-03.txt and
http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html

Thomas

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Normative/Informative References
  - From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>

Prev by Date: Re: Thoughts over the holidays - IESG procedures.
Next by Date: Re: Thoughts over the holidays - IESG procedures.
Previous by thread: RE: Normative/Informative References
Next by thread: Re: Normative/Informative References
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread