RE: normative vs. informative references in MIB boilerplate

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 5:23 PM
> To: mibs@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: normative vs. informative references in MIB boilerplate
> 
> Hello,
> 
> As many of you know, the RFC editor will soon require (or perhaps already
> requires) that normative and informative references be listed separately;
> see 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-00.txt
> 
Yep... that will soon be required. Actually it is already required...

> There is a lengthy list of references that accompany the standard MIB
> boilerplate, and the question now arises which of these should be
> considered normative and which should be considered informative.
> Maybe the ADs have already considered this question and made a ruling;

I don;t think we make "rulings" about what is and what is not normative.
Such should be clear from the doc... that is for the people who are
familiar withe the technology described. For the more novice reader,
the division in the references section is supposed to help them. It 
will also help the RFC-Editor to more quickly assess which docs indeed
are normative.

> if not, here are my nominations:
> 
> for normative References:   [RFC2578], [RFC2579], [RFC2580]
> 
Those 3 seem very clear to be normative.

> for informative References: [RFC1155], [RFC1212], [RFC1215],
>       [RFC2570], [RFC2571], [RFC1157], [RFC1901], [RFC1906],
>       [RFC2572], [RFC2574], [RFC1905], [RFC2573], [RFC2575]
> 
I wonder ... most MIB docs urge people to use SNMPv3 and specifically
the USM and VACM for secure access to the MIB. So would they also not
be normative?

> The informative references will of course change when the SNMPv3 document
> set is published.  Since the boilerplate will need to be updated then
> anyway, perhaps that will be a good time to capture the normative vs.
> informative distinction in the official boilerplate.
> 
I agree that that would be a good time. I will check with RFC-Editor
if it is acceptable to wait till that time.

> Comments requested.
> 
Indeed...

Bert
> Mike
> 
>