Thanks, Adam, i had overlooked the "or understandding the content" first
time i've been round the block!
In any case, see reply to Alvaros original DISCUS why i think ACP does not
need to be normative reference, and that IMHO also applies to the
"understanding"
part.
Cheers
Toerless
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 06:49:45PM -0600, Adam Roach wrote:
> On 1/10/18 6:36 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> >Thanks, Ben
> >
> >Pls. check the reply i sent to Alvaro i just sent. It tackles the
> >issue of whether ACP should be a normative reference.
> >
> >Your comment makes me more confused about the exact rules for what makes
> >a reference normative. Initially (when i wrote the stable connectivity draft)
> >i thought an informational doc should not have normative references because
> >it did itself not have MUST/SHOULD requirements that could have dependencies.
> >
> >Later Brian Carpenter i think explained to me this i was wrong, but since
> >then
> >my understanding is "Reference must be normative if you must
> >support/implement
> >it to implement/support the current document".
> >
> >Your comment makes it sound more like "if you must read/understand a
> >reference
> >then it must be normative". Is that true ? Which RFC/section says so ?
>
> That's true. You're looking for
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.6
>
> Reference lists must indicate whether each reference is normative or
> informative, where normative references are essential to implementing
> or understanding the content of the RFC and informative references
> provide additional information.
>
>
> The IESG's guidance on this topic is posted here, and it provides
> some additional rationale for these criteria:
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html
>
> /a
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
Anima@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
