I'll start with a quote from the RFC Editor "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors"
Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. An informative reference is not normative; rather, it provides only additional information. For example, an informative reference might provide background or historical information. Material in an informative reference is not required to implement the technology in the RFC. Based on the above criteria, there are a number of references which I believe are not in the correct bucket. I would ask the authors to review this prior to WGLC ending and re-evaluate based on the above criteria Examples of things that I think are misplaced: Algorithms draft - - RFC 5116 - this reference is going to disappear since it is just used in the changes section. - RFC 5226 - Don't know why implementers would ever care about this - McGrew-aed-aes-cbc-hmac-sha2 - you need to know how to do this in order to implement - thus it should be normative Signature Draft - Some of the drafts here are not reference in long term text Is ECMAScript something that needs to be understood? Is 3986 really a normative reference?
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
