Subject: [NSIS] A question on GIST references

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:09:45 +0100

Hi all,

in reviews of the GIST specification, a few people have questioned
whether the framework (RFC4080) and threats (RFC4081) documents should
be Informative (as they are now), or Normative.

My feeling is that if people understand the GIST specification at a high
level, then 4080/4081 will not change how they implement it. However,
4080 (especially) and 4081 do contain useful information about the
context within which the protocol is expected to work, and so might be
necessary for people to read to get off to the right start when reading
the specification.

The downside of making them normative (to me) is that as well as useful
information, they contain information that is outdated (in terminology
if nothing else). They are also Informational and therefore strictly
can't be normative references in a Standards Track document (at least
according to rfc3967).

I suspect that what we really need is a third type of reference, 'Not
Normative but still really useful background information', and that is
the sort of thing that can be highlighted in the introduction.
Alternatively, it costs very little effort to move these references into
the Normative section if people think that is appropriate.

Any further views appreciated (especially from IETF process experts),

robert h.

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:51:04 +0300

They should be informational.  That's the way things work.
That doesn't mean you cannot put something like:

 'Not Normative but still really useful background 
 information can be found in RFC4080.

John

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Hancock, Robert [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 26 October, 2006 16:10
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [NSIS] A question on GIST references
>
>Hi all,
>
>in reviews of the GIST specification, a few people have 
>questioned whether the framework (RFC4080) and threats 
>(RFC4081) documents should be Informative (as they are now), 
>or Normative.
>
>My feeling is that if people understand the GIST specification 
>at a high level, then 4080/4081 will not change how they 
>implement it. However, 4080 (especially) and 4081 do contain 
>useful information about the context within which the protocol 
>is expected to work, and so might be necessary for people to 
>read to get off to the right start when reading the specification.
>
>The downside of making them normative (to me) is that as well 
>as useful information, they contain information that is 
>outdated (in terminology if nothing else). They are also 
>Informational and therefore strictly can't be normative 
>references in a Standards Track document (at least according 
>to rfc3967).
>
>I suspect that what we really need is a third type of 
>reference, 'Not Normative but still really useful background 
>information', and that is the sort of thing that can be 
>highlighted in the introduction.
>Alternatively, it costs very little effort to move these 
>references into the Normative section if people think that is 
>appropriate.
>

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:43:58 +0200

Hi Robert,

> necessary for people to read to get off to the right start when reading

I guess that you even can implement it correctly without
having read 4080/4081.

> the sort of thing that can be highlighted in the introduction.

As far as I see it that would be a subtype of Informative.

> the Normative section if people think that is appropriate.

Besides that fact that Informational RFC cannot be Normative refs,
I guess that it would not be appropriate either. Maybe a hint in the
introductory text to the references as background info would be
enough.

> Any further views appreciated (especially from IETF process experts),

Cheers,
 Roland

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:38:29 -0400

> I guess that you even can implement it correctly without

That would be my decision criteria.

The problem with normative references is the whole downreferences thing 
- if GIST makes it to DS, all the other references would have to, too, 
although that clearly can't apply to informationals.

Maybe somebody could take a look at recent protocol specs and see if 
requirements or framework-style documents were cited normatively.

My gut feeling is that this makes no sense.

Henning

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:44:53 +0200

> I guess that you even can implement it correctly without

I see it in the same way.

>> references into

Informational RFCs can go into Normative References section, if these  
Informational RFCs are normative for the I-D.
I see 4080/4081 being part of the Informative References, as they can  
help implementing GIST but it is not necessary to read them.

   Martin