On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > While I agree with your thoughts here, the bottom line is that these > documents talk about quality-of-implementation issues. You do not > *have* to reference them to implement the protocol, therefore they are > by definition not normative references.
Well, what should I do? Perhaps there should be a separate section for so-called "informative" references which have normative content? Remember that the old Host Requirements documents were in the same position. I'm worried because we have this idiot on comp.mail.imap claiming that IMAP is something different from the specification due to his own twisted reading of the specification (which includes totally disregarding the formal syntax). Granted that nothing can be done about his crusade, but I'd like to take some sort of affirmative measures to prevent it from happening by innocent mistake. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.