Hi Tom. A few observations:
On 9/15/2017 12:28 PM, t.petch wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lou Berger" <lber...@labn.net> > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 6:06 PM > >> On 9/14/2017 12:36 PM, t.petch wrote: >>> Appendices are Normative if they say that they are Normative. The >>> default is that they are not so say that they are and they are. > This is >>> well established practice. >> Hi Tom, >> My memory (I haven't checked recently) is there is nothing in or >> defined process that says if an Appendix is normative or not. Other >> SDOs certainly have formal definitions here. Within the IETF, my view >> has been that if an appendix includes RFC2119 language, it is >> normative. Actually, strictly speaking, any text in a Standards Track >> RFC that doesn't include RFC2119 language is just informative. > Lou > > Try RFC4910. > > ' This appendix is normative. ' > > and not a SHOULD or a MUST in sight. - This is an Experimental not Proposed Standard RFC. - As an organization, we've improved or differentiation of normative and informative text over the last 10 years - The RFC editor still does *not* require use of RFC2119 language, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7322#section-4.8.2 Lou > Tom Petch > >> Lou >> > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
