On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 02:48:00PM +0100, Cyril Margaria wrote: > Thanks for the review, > > a new version has been posted addressing your comments. > Please also see inline > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 at 13:47, Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > s9.2, RFC7025: Given the references to the requirements document for this > > work, > > I would consider RFC 7025 to be normative. > > > > [MC] 7025 is marked as Informational, so I am not sure it should > listed as normative.
The status (Informational/PS/etc.) of a reference is not relevant to whether the reference is properly normative or informative. Please see https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/ for further background -- if a normative reference on an Informational document is needed, the responsible AD will take care of making that work, procedurally. -Ben _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
