[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Jan 3 21:14:06 PST 2007

Lloyd Wood wrote:
> At Wednesday 03/01/2007 16:36 -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>> It should be insufficient to get those words into an RFC without
>> evidence that they are appropriate. RFCs are neither the sole nor
>> necessarily the appropriate place for that information; they can and
>> should cite published work that validates their claims. 
> Such citations would be informational rather than normative, and therefore optional.

Although there is a distinction between required citations of protocols
(normative) and other references, I don't agree that it's appropriate to
consider all informative references optional. They're informative only
in the sense that they don't cite protocol standards; they're required
if they are needed to understand motivation.

> Informational references tend to get left out of RFCs.

I hope we all avoid making that mistake, or allowing others to do so.


Joe Touch
Sr. Network Engineer, USAF TSAT Space Segment

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20070103/88153b30/signature.bin

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list