Benoit,
I think this and related topic was closed with the conclusion of sticking
with 2119 language for normative text in current and future WG docs. We
certainly can add this sentence as well.
Lou
On October 2, 2017 5:11:20 AM Benoit Claise <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
Dear all,
To avoid any confusion, just clearly mention it.
"This appendix is normative | informative"
No need to debate for hours on this.
Regards, Benoit
----- 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.
Tom Petch
Lou
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
