Re: [stir] Getting PASSPORT Published

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 2/21/19 5:12 PM, Mary Barnes wrote:
> I personally don't see it adds any value to make the proposed change 
> given that you're proposing to change the status of the draft to 
> Informational (which I'm fine with).


I'm not holding the position that the text needs to change -- that's 
coming from the DISCUSS holder. I mean, I don't think it's an 
unreasonable request, but it's not my decision to make. If you'd like to 
argue for no change, the person whose mind you need to change is EKR. 
I've copied him on this message.


>   We've had this discussion many, many times with one of those threads 
> triggering this draft: 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-peterson-informational-normativity-01 
>  We could start it again, if you don't agree with what that draft says 
> - that will give us a good topic for open mic discussions at the 
> plenary next month ;)
>
> I also thought IESG had published a statement on this, but I can only 
> find the one with regards to the references and not the terms: 
> https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/.


Based on the two links above, I think you've confused two different 
concepts.

One is the "Normative" versus "Informative" reference sections in a 
document, which is what both of the links pertain to.

The other, which is only very loosely related, is the status of a 
published document (Proposed Standard, Best Current Practice, 
Informational, or Experimental).

The change being proposed here is to the second thing, not the first thing.

/a