<div dir="ltr">Either I've misstated or not clearly stated it, but I think the description of differences needn't be considered normative, but does belong in Protocol.<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM, John C Klensin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:klensin@jck.com">klensin@jck.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<br>
--On Thursday, 09 October, 2008 15:07 +0200 Mark Davis<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><<a href="mailto:mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>> Rationale and into either Protocol or a separate document, we<br>
>> are first going to have to agree about what material falls<br>
>> into the "normative" category. I believe that the analysis<br>
>> above suggests quite strongly that it is not a simple<br>
>> decision with an obvious answer.<br>
><br>
> If it is not clear what is and isn't normative, we have a huge<br>
> problem on our hands! If we can't decide, there is no way on<br>
> earth ordinary users will be able to know what is and is not<br>
> required for implementation, representing a severe<br>
> interoperability problem.<br>
<br>
</div>Mark,<br>
<br>
I will have more to say about this, and probably some new<br>
documents, after Vint declares the comment period closed and<br>
announces an evaluation on it (I think his note to Martin<br>
predicts where this is going, but I expect him to think for<br>
himself).<br>
<br>
However, in the hope of clearing up what is rapidly becoming a<br>
large and smelly red herring...<br>
<br>
With one exception, I do not believe there is _any_ disagreement<br>
about what is or is not substantively normative. That exception<br>
relates to whether the description of differences between<br>
IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 is formally normative or not. I have<br>
already explained why, from my point of view, it must not be...<br>
a position what ought to be strongly aligned with the position<br>
of those who believe that we should just tell implementers of<br>
IDNA2008 what do so.<br>
<br>
What we do have is some disagreement about category-labels. If<br>
we reference a document as "Rationale", we get some comments<br>
about material that should not be considered as rationale<br>
material, perhaps from people who haven't actually read that<br>
document (or perhaps not). (Lest that comment be misunderstood,<br>
it is clear to me that you have read the document and read it<br>
carefully... it is one or two others about whom I've got<br>
doubts.) But, similarly, once we start talking about material<br>
to be moved to some other document (existing already or not)<br>
then we are really talking about collections of material, not<br>
whether the material is narrowly normative or not. A narrow<br>
definition of what is normative _for purposes of determining<br>
what should be in which document_ produces different document<br>
content than a definition of what belongs together in a document<br>
whose audience is protocol implementers, even though one would<br>
expect the latter definition to include all of the<br>
narrowly-normative material. And, for that latter category,<br>
there is ample range for disagreement without getting anywhere<br>
near the "huge problem" to which you refer.<br>
<br>
I would encourage others who have opinions on what _specific_<br>
material should be moved out of the document that is informally<br>
known as "Rationale" and into something else to say so, and to<br>
be clear (if possible) as to whether they consider the material<br>
they recommend moving to be narrowly "normative" or just<br>
something that logically belongs in some other document. For<br>
example, one might believe that the material on differences<br>
between IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 belongs in an appendix to Protocol<br>
(and hence should be out of Rationale) without believing that<br>
material to be normative.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
john<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div></div>