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

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I certainly agree that there is no process requirement, but there is a
potentially useful result.  When I see a document like this with 9
normative references (as it has now), I get the sense that those are the
ones which are needed context and that the informative ones are useful
additional information.  That maps to "Essential reading" and "Useful
additional information", which is pretty much the same mapping as
"Normative" and "Informative" have in a protocol spec.  It's not *exactly*
the same, I grant you, but it's an approximation.  My question about the
three listed as "starts from" might have been better phrased as:  are these
"Essential Reading" or "Useful additional information"?

regards,

Ted Hardie

>    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
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>