Restoring the Gen-ART CC since we need the discussion in the archive. See below...
On 2012-06-06 20:43, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Barry, > At 12:23 06-06-2012, Barry Leiba wrote: >> Leaving the entire message below, because Brian doesn't appear to have >> been copied on it. > > I didn't copy Brian as I thought it better to wait for a WG reply. > >> I don't see why it's not right at all, and please don't make the >> mistake of thinking that an informational document doesn't have >> normative references. I think the original Experimental docs are >> *absolutely* normative references for this document, and i see nothing >> wrong with that at all. > > The comment posted by Dave is at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01426.html > > I generally use the following for guidance: > > "Normative references specify documents that must be read to > understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or > whose technology must be present for the technology in the > new RFC to work." Exactly. This draft does not define new technology, is not a technical specification (cf RFC 2026), and therefore does not need normative references. Brian > > Regards > S. Moonesamy > > . > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
