Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
The overview document states that it is seeking Informational RFC
status. Further, it does not include the usual citation and statement
that normative vocabulary is used to assert normative requirements.
I'd say that this is a poor idea as it becomes rather unclear
Eliot Lear wrote:
An overview is not the place for normative statements. Can we discuss
this in person in Chicago?
Eliot, et al,
I think your response highlights the dilemma: There is the title (and the
original intent) and there is (possibly) a different reality to the current
content.
An overview is not the place for normative statements. Can we discuss
this in person in Chicago?
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Many thanks to Dave for bringing this up.
At 2:55 PM -0400 7/14/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
The overview document states that it is seeking Informational RFC
status. Further, it does not include the usual citation and
statement that normative vocabulary is used to assert normative
requirements.
Folks,
The overview document states that it is seeking Informational RFC status.
Further, it does not include the usual citation and statement that normative
vocabulary is used to assert normative requirements.
Nonetheless, the document has quite a number of apparently normative
statements -
