RE: snmpconf "bcp" Version 11 published

At 05:08 PM 1/2/2003 +0100, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>WQhy doesn't wayne post a suggested set of normative and informative
>references, so we can take a quick look to check how we feel
>about them.

That's roughly how I was subdividing them when I was making an attempt 
myself at this previously.  However, Randy's guideline for dividing them up 
("what must be read to understand the document"), whose simplicity I rather 
like actually, didn't seem to be the rule of thumb used by other recent 
IESG approved docs (from tewg, ipo), which seemed like it was more about 
what-is-definining-a-standard vs. what-is-describing-a-framework.  So, I 
took Bert's other out of saying "in an informational RFC, all references 
are informative" :).

If there is some room for interpretation here, though, I'll run by how I 
broke down the references in a post to the list in a little while.

Regards,
Wayne