Kent Karlsson wrote: > (And recall my note about the ISO convention of dated > and undated references.) For the "date A" (1988) business the dates are relevant. > [ISO3166-1] [...] > ----> What about part 3? Should be added / included, it's used to track code changes like YDYE. > Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition", 1998. > Either consistently include edition (for dated references...) > or consistenly exclude it. 1988 is a magic year here, RfC 3066 and 1766 used precisely this edition, therefore we ignored crap deprecated before 1988 like NHVU, RHZW, or VDVN. > [RFC2026] [...] > I still think this one should not be listed as "normative". Required as part of the appeal procedure in chapter 3.4 > [RFC2028] [...] > I thought it was agreed that this wasn't (and cannot be) a > normative reference. Used to explain "IESG" in the same statement where 2026 is used (normatively), so that's in fact unnecessary, 2026 has its own explanation of "IESG" in its introduction. And as long as 2860 is (ab)used to explain IANA nobody needs 2028, let alone normatively. > [RFC2047] [...] > I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative > reference here. Should be on the same level as 2231 for consistency. > [RFC2119] [...] > I still think this one should not be listed as "normative". > It is more "metanormative" for IETF standards No, it is NOT "metanormative", you're free to use your own funny definitions for MUST, SHOULD, and STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. So if you want the 2119 definitions 2119 IS normative. Just leave 2119 alone, it belongs to "hums" and "BoFs" and other IETF rituals. > [RFC2434] [...] > I thought it was agreed that this wasn't a normative reference Not sure about "agreed", but FWIW "seconded". > [RFC2781] Dito. > [RFC3552] Dito. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.