IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-registry-03

Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com> Wed, 19 January 2011 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <hadi@mojatatu.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 401D73A701A for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:59:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.938, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cAmqnsNx4h8n for <rtg-dir@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53A4B3A7015 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:59:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so763474qyk.10 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:02:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.224.215.135 with SMTP id he7mr771597qab.378.1295452943335; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:02:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.179.202 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jan 2011 08:02:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <04eb01cbb73a$f7476ab0$e5d64010$@huawei.com>
References: <AANLkTi=PaZc+OgTfWXZQh7Hw-6WHk90QBzEEtG46ZQe8@mail.gmail.com> <4D35D59A.9090306@cisco.com> <04eb01cbb73a$f7476ab0$e5d64010$@huawei.com>
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:02:03 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimO6qrM+OpnpkmYSeS3RWrg-EKS_KZMssvnNkJP@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org, Stig Venaas <svenaas@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-pim-registry.all@tools.ietf.org, rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-registry-03
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtg-dir>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 15:59:44 -0000

For completion sake: i am assuming the logical conclusion here is for
Stig to move
those refs to informative, correct?

cheers,
jamal

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A Normative reference is one that must be read to understand the document in
> hand.
>
> A reference used to say "this code point was created in the referenced document"
> does not require the referenced document to be read. That would make it
> Informational.
>
> A
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:svenaas@cisco.com]
>> Sent: 18 January 2011 18:02
>> To: Jamal Hadi Salim
>> Cc: rtg-ads@tools.ietf.org; rtg-dir@ietf.org; draft-ietf-pim-
>> registry.all@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: RtgDir review: draft-ietf-pim-registry-03
>>
>> On 1/17/2011 5:57 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
>> > The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
>> > drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review. The purpose
>> > of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more
>> > information about the Routing Directorate, please see
>> > http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate/routing.html
>>
>> Thanks, I agree with your comments. Just one question.
>>
>> [...]
>> > Nits:
>> >
>> > There is an interesting nit in that you have RFC 3973 as a normative
>> > reference (which sounds deserving in the context of this document)
>> > but that RFC is an experimental RFC.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether it is important, but I am wondering what is the
>> right solution here. Is it OK to have a normative reference, or should
>> it be an informative reference?
>>
>> I'm sure it must be common that registries are created and need to
>> reference e.g. experimental RFCs. In some cases the registry reference
>> is not even an RFC. Perhaps it then makes more sense to list them as
>> informative references?
>>
>> Stig
>>
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > jamal
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email