Re: [Gen-art] [spfbis] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-spfbis-experiment-09.txt

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

Restoring the Gen-ART CC since we need the discussion in the archive.

See below...

On 2012-06-06 20:43, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Barry,
> At 12:23 06-06-2012, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> Leaving the entire message below, because Brian doesn't appear to have
>> been copied on it.
> 
> I didn't copy Brian as I thought it better to wait for a WG reply.
> 
>> I don't see why it's not right at all, and please don't make the
>> mistake of thinking that an informational document doesn't have
>> normative references.  I think the original Experimental docs are
>> *absolutely* normative references for this document, and i see nothing
>> wrong with that at all.
> 
> The comment posted by Dave is at
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01426.html
> 
> I generally use the following for guidance:
> 
>   "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."

Exactly. This draft does not define new technology, is not a
technical specification (cf RFC 2026), and therefore does not
need normative references.

    Brian

> 
> Regards
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> .
>