|
RFC can not have reference to I-Ds. References
to the two I-Ds will hold publishing of this document as an RFC until the I-Ds are
published as RFCs. I would suggest the way forward is to
remove reference to I-Ds. I do not believe that they are accentual to PCN Architecture
doc. Regards, Joe From:
pcn-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pcn-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of philip.eardley at bt.com I’ve been looking at references in the
Architecture document. I’d put everything as an Informative reference,
due to mistaking that Informational doc => Informative refs. http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
gives the following guidance: “Normative references specify documents that
must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose
technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. An
informative reference is not normative; rather, it only provides additional
information. For example, an informative reference might provide background or
historical information. Informative references are not required to implement
the technology in the RFC.” I believe that we have just 2 Normative references for
the Architecture doc (surprisingly the first is currently not a reference!!): RFC2474 Definition of the Differentiated Services
Field (DS Field) in the IPv4 and IPv6 Headers RFC3246 An Expedited Forwarding PHB (Per-Hop Behavior) All the others are Informative refs. I’m a bit
worried about 2 I-Ds, eardley-pcn-marking-behaviour &
moncaster-pcn-baseline-encoding and am thinking more about those. Please shout if you disagree - Thanks, phil |
_______________________________________________ PCN mailing list PCN at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcn