Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Thu, 14 September 2017 17:06 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 E06F2133025 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.701 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, SPF_PASS=-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 y_1vnPwfw1ND for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy5-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.38.55]) (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 DE633132924 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw4 (unknown [10.0.90.85]) by gproxy5.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6456914054A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:06:34 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw4 with id 9V6W1w0162SSUrH01V6ZZV; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:06:34 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=OZLoNlbY c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=2JCJgTwv5E4A:10 a=ZRBybLNu9Ib41AI41nMA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject: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=22C0ARzW1nO8lcG2Q5ly0FQIxyuGbxoIqckfjV+wm1g=; b=07JBpR49GkcjGcLIPNfU/WA0X2 Ztij4WEb9wprrhrrToH+cPQeEMrWbV4zFy/GLokGtodxIZsN5gMlArRnCVq0d8jqV8NLennuDiPvF n+6MnrNMeOwtMQerlj1W5viSA;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:54510 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1dsXaw-001NgW-8c; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 11:06:30 -0600
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod@ietf.org
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$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <9c0d8394-b2a4-180a-2454-8955c1721423@labn.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:06:28 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <011d01d32d77$c8e0a500$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: 1dsXaw-001NgW-8c
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.84.20]:54510
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 9
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/FJRaog0izgz-_3AdxytRMYVZblE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] upcoming adoptions
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: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:06:37 -0000


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