> s8: <Heresy Starts> Barry Leiba in his comments in the tracker suggests > that the references would be usefully split into Normative and > Informative subsets. Given the number of references, splitting them up > seems like a good idea. I am going to suggest something highly > heretical: Split them up but call them "Key References" and "Additional > References". "Normative" has become such a loaded word in the standards > community that, despite its underlying English meaning, it is probably > better to confine its usage to Standards Track documents. I feel that > we usefully adopt this alternative classification for non-standards > track documents as a general technique to avoid the ongoing discussions > about split refetrence sections. <Heresy Ends>
That would address the spirit of my concern, and I'd be happy if we went in that direction. I think the RFC Editor would push back, as their Style Guide has an effect on this as well... so if we do want to go in this direction, we should head to rfc-interest and pose it as input to the updated RFC Style Guide that they're working on. Barry _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
