Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 02 October 2017 10:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F589134590 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 03:39:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HSmULLFVeZFX for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 03:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy7-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [70.40.196.235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B80E413458F for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 03:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw2 (unknown [10.0.90.83]) by gproxy7.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93F6215E33 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Oct 2017 04:39:42 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id Gafe1w01i2SSUrH01afhr2; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 04:39:42 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=dZfw5Tfe c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=02M-m0pO-4AA:10 a=AUd_NHdVAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=2zrnvUJXJ44BzUHwDMAA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Yz9wTY_ffGCQnEDHKrcv:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=scCuWiYllLXlW806dcROQHzY83O6QYab53yDJly5FuM=; b=FGAyq7fbclPyGRlzuk5TSSWhDX 1w8rUJS+0gHfVx2vBwpOmTZkVF7LzWGcTNjn/vV59K2l86pd7SIlgwFZHgXlRQbbdkUdvjbvKt0sQ PHau5mTNkNIss71rQ2lic0c8l;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:48379 helo=[11.4.0.6]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dyy8Q-001pVW-ME; Mon, 02 Oct 2017 04:39:38 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 06:39:35 -0400
Message-ID: <15edcab6a58.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <920d0500-e7ea-66ff-5124-a025a438dbac@cisco.com>
References: <14299503-509D-43BE-A938-0B7B88C3B249@juniper.net> <36ba3d4b-1ae1-0666-12cf-db41e172924b@cisco.com> <75739d75-da96-b340-2403-d0949ac54ed7@labn.net> <19134054-D52E-4A6D-992A-A47F365557AD@juniper.net> <2891bd09-0e0d-415c-2714-15141a293e42@cisco.com> <D14158EF-77F4-4E0A-9A06-213F5CF04647@juniper.net> <011d01d32d77$c8e0a500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <9c0d8394-b2a4-180a-2454-8955c1721423@labn.net> <003801d32e3f$ba625460$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <920d0500-e7ea-66ff-5124-a025a438dbac@cisco.com>
User-Agent: AquaMail/1.11.0-568 (build: 101100004)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.84.20
X-Exim-ID: 1dyy8Q-001pVW-ME
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([11.4.0.6]) [100.15.84.20]:48379
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 1
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/75burPHhE_c_cjHB6HAFd0CdaW8>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions - this appendix is normative
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 10:39:47 -0000

Benoit,

I think this and related topic was closed with the conclusion of sticking 
with 2119 language for normative text in current and future WG docs. We 
certainly can add this sentence as well.

Lou


On October 2, 2017 5:11:20 AM Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> To avoid any confusion, just clearly mention it.
>      "This appendix is normative | informative"
> No need to debate for hours on this.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lou Berger" <lberger@labn.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM
>>
>>> On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote:
>>>> Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative.  The
>>>> default is that they are not so say that they are and they are.
>> This is
>>>> well established practice.
>>> Hi Tom,
>>> My memory (I haven't checked recently) is there is nothing in or
>>> defined process that says if an Appendix is normative or not. Other
>>> SDOs certainly have formal definitions here. Within the IETF, my view
>>> has been that if an appendix includes RFC2119 language, it is
>>> normative. Actually, strictly speaking, any text in a Standards Track
>>> RFC that doesn't include RFC2119 language is just informative.
>> Lou
>>
>> Try RFC4910.
>>
>> '   This appendix is normative.'
>>
>> and not a SHOULD or a MUST in sight.
>>
>> Tom Petch
>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>> .
>>
>
>