On January 17, 2019 at 12:55:33 AM, Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View) (jorge.raba...@nokia.com) wrote:


Thanks for all the answers.

I’ll leave any decision to change up to Martin. :-)



(6) The HRW1999 reference must be Normative.
[JORGE] please check out the discussion with Adrian and Satya related to
this, where Adrian recommended to move it to informative references.

I don’t think that was Adrian’s intent when he said: "HRW1999 is provided
as a normative reference, and from the text I can see why.”

In any case, I think the reference has to be Normative because HRW "must be
read to...implement the technology in the new RFC”.


[JORGE] we can change it as long as it does not create any issues. By the
way, sorry, I provided the wrong Adrian’s email. I should have sent this:

“In general (and I think your draft is an example of this) it is possible
to describe/rewrite the pieces of normative text without infringing
copyright. That usually reduces the reference to Informative and provides
enough information in the RFC for implementation. Your draft is an example
of this because you have described the algorithms in your text with enough
detail to allow an implementation: the reference is really only there to
provide context and proof of the algorithms. (And anyway, having found a
freely accessible copy of the reference in your draft, we are probably home
and dry.)”

Let us know if you still want us to change it to normative, please.
BESS mailing list

Reply via email to