Re: normative references and such

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155028EC406@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.c
om>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" writes:
>Steve and I were discussing ccamp docs of last telechat)
>and if they both should be stds track. One could be informational, 
>but it is normatively referenced from the one that clearly is
>to be stds track. So I submitted (and we approved) them both
>for stds track.
>
>> >New revs have been posted to address DISCUSS of Russ.
>> >So we're ready to approve. 
>> >Just checking to see if you are happy too.
>> >I know it was a non-blocking comment, but still I want
>> >to try and make you happy. 
>> 
>> I thought I sent one.
>> 
>> Anyway, I'm more or less happy with that answer, but there's a larger 
>> question I need to write up for the whole IESG:  how we classify 
>> architecture or framework documents.
>> 
>yep.
>In fact, there is also an Action Item that has been open for a while
>which is relevant:
>
>IP      o Randy Bush and Ned Freed to finish ID on Clarifying when
>          Standards Track Documents may Refer Normatively to Documents
>          at a Lower Level.
>
>No progress was reported yesterday (if I remember correctly)

That's not quite my point -- I didn't think there was a problem 
referring to something that's Informational.  My concern is that 
architecture and framework documents are often classified as 
Informational, but you actually need them to implement the protocol 
properly.  To me, they should generally be standards-track.  We're not 
very consistent about that, and we should be.

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb