Re: [stir] Getting PASSPORT Published

[Mary Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Responses inline below [MB]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:54 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> [MB] I think Chris just forwarded a response that he had previously sent.
[/MB]

>
> >   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.
>
> [MB] I'm not at all confused.  Jon's document talks about both concepts.
And, if you read my words,  I had thought that IESG had a statement on both
of those concepts, but it looks like it was only one (i.e., the normative
reference).  I thought maybe someone else might remember if the IESG had
done one on the other concept.  But, regardless, it's been a topic
discussed at length. [/MB]


> 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.
>
[MB] Yes, I was fully aware of all of that per my comment above - maybe
next time, give me the benefit of the doubt and ask a clarifying question
before making an assumption that I'm the one that's confused. [/MB]

>
> /a
>
>