Subject: Re: the old "separate document series" argument

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:48:31 -0400 (EDT)

John asks

>>> Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other
>>> standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non
>>> standards track specifications other than referenced specifications from
>>> other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)
>>
>>Or am I misreading it somehow?
>
>I'm looking at "depends".  If an informational document doesn't make
>requirements on a standards-track document, then it seems to me a
>reference by a standards-track doc to an informational one is
>allowable.  But, so far, this is only my interpretation.  I'll feel a
>lot more comfortable if others read it the same way I do.
>Unfortunately, your remarks, John, don't improve my comfort. <grin>
>A word from Scott here regarding the 4.2.4's intent could help. 

the intent was to talk about "normative" references - references where
the knowledge of the referenced document is required to properly implement
the technology.  If the referenced document is just referenced for
information and backgroud and one could implement the technology without
reading the referenced document then that is not a normative reference
and does not trigger the words in 4.2.4

Scott

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:30:49 PDT

> and does not trigger the words in 4.2.4

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?

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 16:30:49 PDT