Subject: Re: Normative vs. non-normative references

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:09:03 -0400 (EDT)

"Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]> suggests:

> In recent attempts to coordinate with ITU over Internet Fax, it was
> suggested that RFCs separate out, in the 'references' section, those
> references that are normative from those that are not.
> 
> This puts a burden on RFC authors and the RFC editor, but since the
> evaluation of the maturity level of documents depends on knowing this,
> anyway, perhaps this could be done for future standards-track documents?

I think this would be a good idea (have two subsections in the references
section of RFCs- one for normative and one for non-normative references)

I think it would help clarify the author's intentions and make the
IESG & RFC Editor's tasks more reliable (if it helps make RFCs more 
acceptable to other standards organizations that's a definite plus,
it is far better if they reference IETF technology than if they decide to
make their own and wind up confusing the marketplace)

Scott

---

From: Scott Cadzow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:42:45 +0100

The use of "Normative" and "Informative" references is standard practice in
ETSI deliverables (clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of any ETSI deliverable). In addition
ETSI allows a "Bibliography" as an "Informative" annex. For standards track
RFCs this would appear to be a good model to follow.

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 August 1999 06:33
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Scott Bradner; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Normative vs. non-normative references

At 07:15 PM 8/26/99 , Larry Masinter wrote:
>I'd suggest that we make this part of the instructions for
>RFC authors, i.e., put the burden on the document author
>of a standards-track document.

There is benefit in the loose style to IETF documents, but it does 
periodically result in people not be clear about text (and references) that 
are specification, versus text (and references) that are discussion.

In addition to making the distinction for references, should we not also 
make it for content?

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                         Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                               Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive                             <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA                 <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Scott Cadzow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:42:45 +0100

Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: 27 August 1999 06:33
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: Scott Bradner; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Normative vs. non-normative references

d/