What is normative?

[Mark Davis]

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.
Mark


On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, 09 October, 2008 15:07 +0200 Mark Davis
> <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>
> >> Rationale and into either Protocol or a separate document, we
> >> are first going to have to agree about what material falls
> >> into the "normative" category.  I believe that the analysis
> >> above suggests quite strongly that it is not a simple
> >> decision with an obvious answer.
> >
> > If it is not clear what is and isn't normative, we have a huge
> > problem on our hands! If we can't decide, there is no way on
> > earth ordinary users will be able to know what is and is not
> > required for implementation, representing a severe
> > interoperability problem.
>
> Mark,
>
> I will have more to say about this, and probably some new
> documents, after Vint declares the comment period closed and
> announces an evaluation on it (I think his note to Martin
> predicts where this is going, but I expect him to think for
> himself).
>
> However, in the hope of clearing up what is rapidly becoming a
> large and smelly red herring...
>
> With one exception, I do not believe there is _any_ disagreement
> about what is or is not substantively normative.  That exception
> relates to whether the description of differences between
> IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 is formally normative or not.  I have
> already explained why, from my point of view, it must not be...
> a position what ought to be strongly aligned with the position
> of those who believe that we should just tell implementers of
> IDNA2008 what do so.
>
> What we do have is some disagreement about category-labels.   If
> we reference a document as "Rationale", we get some comments
> about material that should not be considered as rationale
> material, perhaps from people who haven't actually read that
> document (or perhaps not).  (Lest that comment be misunderstood,
> it is clear to me that you have read the document and read it
> carefully... it is one or two others about whom I've got
> doubts.)   But, similarly, once we start talking about material
> to be moved to some other document (existing already or not)
> then we are really talking about collections of material, not
> whether the material is narrowly normative or not.  A narrow
> definition of what is normative _for purposes of determining
> what should be in which document_ produces different document
> content than a definition of what belongs together in a document
> whose audience is protocol implementers, even though one would
> expect the latter definition to include all of the
> narrowly-normative material.  And, for that latter category,
> there is ample range for disagreement without getting anywhere
> near the "huge problem" to which you refer.
>
> I would encourage others who have opinions on what _specific_
> material should be moved out of the document that is informally
> known as "Rationale" and into something else to say so, and to
> be clear (if possible) as to whether they consider the material
> they recommend moving to be narrowly "normative" or just
> something that logically belongs in some other document.  For
> example, one might believe that the material on differences
> between IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 belongs in an appendix to Protocol
> (and hence should be out of Rationale) without believing that
> material to be normative.
>
>     john
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081011/235a0762/attachment.htm