Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-05

On 16/04/2013 13:27, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> RFC 5887 and 4192 are Informational so cannot be normative
> 
> That's not true any more -- we've allowed downrefs to Informational
> documents for some time now, if the community agrees, through a note in the
> last call announcement, that they are necessary references.  All we'd have
> to do is run a last call that specifically mentions them.

Yes, I am aware of that, and it's a matter of judgement, but
since this draft is not in any sense a protocol specification
or a pseudo-BCP, I am not sure why it needs *any* normative
references, let alone downrefs. There is certainly no
process requirement for them.

   Brian

> Barry
> 
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>>>> "starts from existing work in [RFC5887],
>>>>> [I-D.chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout] and [RFC4192]." but the
>> references
>>>>> to these documents are informative.  If the document is meant to be an
>> extension,
>>>>> rather than a replacement, such that these documents must be read to
>> get the full
>>>>> picture, than a normative reference may be better.
>>>> Well, we don't have a category for "informative, but really important
>> context", so I leave it to you to pick.  I would personally likely choose
>> normative to highlight their importance.
>>> [Bing2] Ok, if normative could highlight the importance without
>> implication of extension or replacement, then I think it is good. Thanks
>> for the suggestion.
>>
>> RFC 5887 and 4192 are Informational so cannot be normative, and the draft
>> is long-expired so cannot be normative.
>>
>> Regards
>>    Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@ietf.org <javascript:;>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
> 