Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-03.txt
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 08 July 2003 18:45 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03917; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:45:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxSX-0004co-RJ; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:45:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19ZxS4-0004bR-Gd for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:44:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA03829 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxS1-0004ZC-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:44:30 -0400
Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.102]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19ZxRz-0004Yo-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:44:27 -0400
Received: from northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (northrelay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.150]) by e2.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h68Ihi5U099992; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:43:44 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with ESMTP id h68Ihhnn179768; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:43:44 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h68Iee8k016584; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:40:40 -0400
Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id h68IeecJ016579; Tue, 8 Jul 2003 14:40:40 -0400
Message-Id: <200307081840.h68IeecJ016579@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-03.txt
In-Reply-To: Message from rdroms@cisco.com of "Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:37:05 EDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20030708143215.0494eb90@funnel.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 14:40:40 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
> "normative references are also published" as an RFC? FYI, from http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html > References Section > > Nearly all RFCs contain citations to other documents, and these are > listed in a References section near the end of the RFC. There are many > styles for references, and the RFCs have one of their own. Please > follow the reference style used in recent RFCs. For protocols that > have been assigned STD numbers, the STD number must be included in the > reference. > > Within an RFC, references to other documents fall into two general > categories: "normative" and "informative". 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 only provides additional information. For > example, an informative reference might provide background or > historical information. Informative references are not required to > implement the technology in the RFC. > > The distinction between normative and informative references is often > important. The IETF standards process and the RFC Editor publication > process both need to know whether a reference to a work in progress is > normative. An RFC cannot be published until all of the documents that > it lists as normative references have been published. In practice, > this often results in the simultaneous publication of a group of > inter- related RFCs. > > For these reasons, the IESG and the RFC Editor are preparing new > guidelines that will request separate reference lists for normative > and informative references in RFCs. For example, of both types are > present, there might be two reference sections, numbered s and s+1, > for example: > > s. Normative References > > xxx > ... > xxx > > s+1. Informative References > > xxx > ... > xxx > > > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-option… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-op… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-op… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-op… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-op… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-op… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-op… Robert Elz