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

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

On 1/19/2011 8:02 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> For completion sake: i am assuming the logical conclusion here is for
> Stig to move
> those refs to informative, correct?

I will. Based on the below, I should make all references informational,
even if the document using the code point is standards track.

That makes sense to me :)

Stig
>
> cheers,
> jamal
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Adrian Farrel<[e-mail]>  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:[e-mail]]
>>> Sent: 18 January 2011 18:02
>>> To: Jamal Hadi Salim
>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; draft-ietf-pim-
>>> [e-mail]
>>> 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
>>
>>