On Jan 10, 2018, at 7:51 PM, Toerless Eckert <t...@cs.fau.de> wrote: > > Thanks, Adam, i had overlooked the "or understandding the content" first > time i've been round the block!
Thanks also to Adam for explaining my point before I got to it :-) A sometimes useful thought experiment is whether you think a normal reader would fully understand the points you are making if they didn’t read the cited reference. > > 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. I wasn’t picking on that (or any other) reference in particular; just the fact there were no normative references. It’s certainly possible that none of them should be normative, but that would be an unusual case. Thanks! Ben. > > 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 >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
