Hi Alfred, We don't determine which references should be included as normative or informative. We might make suggestions about this if someting seems odd to us, but whether references appear as normative or inforamtive is usually decided at the working group level (I believe). You may want to discuss this with the authors and working group chairs, as we are unable to provide you with any additional information about why RFC 3630 was a normative reference while RFC 5329 was listed as an informative reference.
Thanks, Sandy On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 07:15:51PM +0100, Alfred H?nes wrote: > Hello, > as an additional remark to the Errata Note I have filed for RFC 5786 > (eid=2085): > > I do not understand why: > > - Ref. [RFC5329] is Informative and [RFC3630] is Normative > (both RFCs are mentioned in a comparable manner, e.g. in > Section 1.1 (3rd para) and Section 5), and > - the RFC only "Updates: 3630" (and not also 5329). > > Further, -- that's perhaps more a deficiency of the IANA Considerations > of RFC 5329 but could be corrected by directives to IANA -- I would > appreciate if the OSPF TE parameters registry would more clearly > indicate its applicability to OSPFv3, e.g. by giving an additional > ref. to RFC 5329 at the top level. > > > Kind regards, > Alfred H?nes. > > -- > > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ > | TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes | Alfred Hoenes Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys. | > | Gerlinger Strasse 12 | Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18 | > | D-71254 Ditzingen | E-Mail: [email protected] | > +------------------------+--------------------------------------------+ _______________________________________________ OSPF mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf
