>> You need a normative reference on the CDDL document regardless, given >> that it is not possible to understand the entirety of >> draft-ietf-cose-rfc8152bis-struct without reading the CDDL draft, >> hence it is a normative reference. The only alternative would be to >> strip all the CDDL text out of the document, and I really doubt that >> you would want to do that. >> >> Even if tools are just being used for validation then you still >> require the CDDL to be right or otherwise the validation could give an >> incorrect response. >> >> Hence, I would recommend that you bite the bullet, add the normative >> reference, and make the CDDL text normative. Given that CDDL has >> already been published as an RFC, I'm unsure why having a normative >> reference to it would be a problem. > > [JLS] Section 1.4 is designed to avoid the need for CDDL to be > normative. Also since the CDDL is explicitly normative I do not > believe that it needs to be normative.
I can't figure this out, Jim. Is there a "not" missing, or some such? In any case, I agree that the CDDL reference can be informative. 8152 predated the CDDL spec and was understandable with only an informative reference to it, and I don't think 8152bis has changed in that regard. > I am still under the impression that one needs to look very closely at > STD downrefs as well as Standards Track downrefs is that not true? An Internet Standard that cites a Proposed Standard normatively is making a downref, if that's what you're asking. That said, it's not a big problem to accept that -- we would just have to run another two-week last call to approve the downref. But, as I said above, I don't think that's necessary. Rob, can you give specific examples of things in 8152bis that can't be properly understood without normative reference to RFC 8610? Barry _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose
