Re: draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-05 last call

All,

My understanding of what is considered Normative reference and 
Informative reference was flawed. Bert has led me in the correct 
direction to developing the correct understanding to the meaning of 
these two types of references. As a result, I need to look over the 
references in the draft and may need to move them around. This process 
may require a few more cycles to get it just right.

Thanks,
Clay Sikes

Clay Sikes wrote:

> Bert,
>
> Thanks! This is very helpful.
>
> - Clay
>
> Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>
>> Inline
>>
>>  
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Clay Sikes [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 17:32
>>> To: Clay Sikes
>>> Cc: Wijnen Bert (Bert); Randy Presuhn; 'Michael Sneed'
>>> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] draft-ietf-adslmib-gshdslbis-05 last call
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bert,
>>>
>>> I'm looking for clarification on references before I issue version 
>>> -06 of the draft. I'm not confident that my understanding is correct.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that references cited in the draft go in the 
>>> Normative References section. References that are not cited, but can 
>>> provide additional information, go in the Informative References 
>>> section. I checked out draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-07.txt, Section 
>>> 4.7f and the Standard MIB Boilerplate, 
>>> http://www.ops.ietf.org/mib-boilerplate.html looking for 
>>> clarification. I did not find anything that supported or ruled out 
>>> my understanding.
>>> Is my understanding correct or is it flawed?
>>> If it's flawed, could you share the correct meaning?
>>>
>>>   
>>
>> Your interpretation/understanding is not correct.
>> The rules/guidelines/policy are/is:
>>
>> - All references MUST have citations in the text.
>> - All citations MUST have references
>> - Documents from which you IMPORT MUST be referenced normatively
>>  (and they must be cited in the text)
>> - Documents that a reader MUST understand in order to understand
>>  this document are normative.
>> - Documents that are just background info are informative
>> - If you want to go PS, then all normative references need to be
>>  sort of stds track too. You cannot make a normative ref to a
>>  experimental doc for example when your doc wants to go stds track
>>  Or when your doc goes DS (Draft Standard) none of your normative 
>>  references can point to a doc at PS level (which is lower lvl
>>  on standards track)
>>
>> See also: http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.refs
>>
>> Or see section 2.7 of draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt
>> This is in fact a rev 8, but I do not think it changed for this section
>> since rev 7.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>> Bert
>>
>>  
>>
>>> If my understanding is correct, I need to move the RFC 3415 
>>> reference up in the Normative References section. That leaves only 
>>> the RFC 3410 reference in the Informative References section. 
>>> However RFC 3410 is referenced in the draft on page 66 which means 
>>> it should be moved up in the Normative References section as well. 
>>> This leaves nothing in the Informative References section. Is this 
>>> what I need to do?
>>> If so, would it be best to delete the Informative References 
>>> section, keep the section and add "None." to maintain consistency 
>>> with the boilerplate, or is their some Informative References that 
>>> I'm missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Clay
>>>

-- Paradyne Mail --