IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] [rfc-i] Advice when converting W3C ED to I-D

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Thu, 14 September 2023 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE653C14F75F for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qW4gQrpgncSI for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88A84C14CF0D for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 10:55:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [91.223.100.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4RmlN10ZjnzDCcg; Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:55:13 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-60440CF3-9BDC-4CFB-8B73-6647F1D2D55C"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Message-Id: <FC5975A9-E5B2-4853-88D5-1B0A797DE82F@tzi.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:55:00 +0200
Cc: Rahul Gupta <cxres=40protonmail.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org, dispatch@ietf.org
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20G81)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/ESHXdBUo5sXRMi57ijpt5BZNBnQ>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] [rfc-i] Advice when converting W3C ED to I-D
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 17:55:19 -0000



Sent from mobile, sorry for terse

> On 14. Sep 2023, at 13:34, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
> Appendices are Informative unless there is a statement to the contrary

Julian is right. Everything that uses normative language is normative, unless specified otherwise. Position or heading style has no bearing (of course you can declare it otherwise in each document). 

The habit of marking crucial parts of a document as non-normative had irritated me before. Try to use any of these documents without using the “non-normative” parts. Bizarre.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email