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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 17-Sep-23 02:38, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I agree with others; there is no standard way to separate all of what is normative v. informative.  However, it is perfectly fine to be explicit in a draft.  A good example of how this was done was in DKIM, RFC 6376.  Here is a snippet:
> 
>>     DKIM supports multiple digital signature algorithms.  Two algorithms
>>     are defined by this specification at this time: rsa-sha1 and rsa-
>>     sha256.  Signers MUST implement and SHOULD sign using rsa-sha256.
>>     Verifiers MUST implement both rsa-sha1 and rsa-sha256.
>>
>>        INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged, some
>>        senders might prefer to use rsa-sha1 when balancing security
>>        strength against performance, complexity, or other needs.  In
>>        general, however, rsa-sha256 should always be used whenever
>>        possible

In RFC 8994, the WG decided to label the sections explicitly, e.g.

4.  Requirements (Informative)
5.  Overview (Informative)
6.  Self-Creation of an Autonomic Control Plane (ACP) (Normative)

     Brian