Re: [MBONED] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mboned-interdomain-peering-bcp-11: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 10/27/17 19:06, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Interesting. This is my first BCP co-authoring, so its not clear to me
> how references have to inherit state based on the way they are referred to in
> a BCP (as opposed to being use in conjunction with a MUST/SHOULD in a standards
> track RFC where i do understand this). Any pointer ?


The general IESG guidance on normative references is here:

https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/normative-informative.html

Relevant to the original text, the following excerpts apply: "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" and "Even references 
that are relevant only for optional features must be classified as 
normative if they meet the above conditions for normative references."

Your proposed shift to make [MDH-04] an example rather than an 
expectation makes it clear that it is only informative. Thanks.

/a