RE: Should RFC 2119 be normative or informative?

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

Scott Bradner tells me (tells the IESG) that he considers 2119
a informative reference. Not sure all IESG members agree.
But I believe we have already passed documents that have it
either way. 

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. M. Heard [mailto:heard@pobox.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 10 september 2002 21:29
> To: mibs
> Subject: Should RFC 2119 be normative or informative?
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote, in reference to
> the newly-posted draft-ietf-ops-taddress-mib-04.txt:
> > This revision just splits the references section into normative and
> > informative references as requested by Bert Wijnen.
> 
> I notice that RFC 2119 is listed in the new draft as a 
> normative reference.
> While that's not unreasonable, I didn't do this on the standards-track
> MIB document for which I was the lead editor because RFC 2119 is
> BCP, not standards track, and I was under the impression that it could
> not be a normative reference for that reason.  At least, 
> that's how I read
> the following note on page 16 of RFC 2026:
> 
>    Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on
>    other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity
>    level or on non standards track specifications other than 
> referenced
>    specifications from other standards bodies.  (See Section 7.)
> 
> This is not a big deal, I'm perfectly happy to follow whatever ruling
> is made, but I do think that all our standards track documents ought
> to do the same thing about this.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
>