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

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 18 September 2017 13:46 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 252901331DC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 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] 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 SKVmyy38HqrW for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy2-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.18.3]) (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 8DD61133158 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CMOut01 (unknown [10.0.90.82]) by gproxy2.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A511E31D4 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:42:38 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id B1ia1w00c2SSUrH011idBJ; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:42:38 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=K4VSJ2eI 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=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=XfLPWjWjkKf_1pUmatMA: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: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=MClac2UvhPFdpjW+iD0Knhnf9aZvbeLTDn+efScxEdc=; b=kv/d+vuILcl0C5ii5v1Hs4FI4m ShPu9GqKfdTrlyh7iVvtKBWx4eNxnhwwLZOqiroqZyEln0KqwO2tOYZ299+xQUEIJPB094xDkplh8 VD5Jl4XJeciR9iufmVBsKucCM;
Received: from pool-100-15-84-20.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.84.20]:54356 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 1dtwJm-001ZmK-B1; Mon, 18 Sep 2017 07:42:34 -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$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <9c0d8394-b2a4-180a-2454-8955c1721423@labn.net> <003801d32e3f$ba625460$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <1d23c9e8-446f-aa67-6cbe-fbc52c24f15e@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:42:30 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <003801d32e3f$ba625460$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: 1dtwJm-001ZmK-B1
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]:54356
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 7
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ISaqWgHBWsnz7MsaJXydxRAMd3I>
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, 18 Sep 2017 13:46:20 -0000

Hi Tom.

    A few observations:


On 9/15/2017 12:28 PM, t.petch wrote:
> ----- 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.

- This is an Experimental not Proposed Standard RFC. 

- As an organization, we've improved or differentiation of normative and
informative text over the last 10 years

- The RFC editor still does *not* require use of RFC2119 language, see
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.2
Lou
> Tom Petch
>
>> Lou
>>
>