Re: [rtcweb] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-24: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> However, my personal view is that IETF need to be able to reference concept
> and basic definitions from informational documents without making it
> normative references. Otherwise we will have a lot of things in the downref
> registry and not be able to find when we end up in actual real issues with
> protocol mechanisms and their source and maturity. That is why I intended to
> leave draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview as an informational reference.

Well, I think normative references are all those that you *need* in
order to understand the document.  If you don't read rtcweb-overview
and understand the terminology in it... would you be able to properly
understand this document?

That said, I'll leave it to your judgment here, and won't argue the
point further.

[And as a side point, I'm working with some other folks on an update
to BCP 97.  The update would *not* require that these sorts of
documents go into the downref registry, but would instead give
judgment to the IESG on the right way to handle this while making sure
that normative references were sufficiently mature.  Because I agree
that the downref registry was never *meant* for documents that are
only used for terminology.]

Barry