- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:38:03 +0200
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Julian Reschke wrote: >>> Understanding these documents is required in order to understand the >>> coding values defined for the coding registry established and used by >>> the document; why would it be appropriate to cite them as informative? > >> I guess the reasoning is that RFC2616 compliant software does not need to >> support content encodings "gzip" or "deflate". > > But it is not optional to implement them in accordance with the relevant > specifications, and the IESG notes in [1]: > > Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand > or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must > be present for the technology in the new RFC to work. > ... > Note 1: Even references that are relevant only for optional features > must be classified as normative if they meet the above conditions for > normative references. > > Unless we change the registry part of the draft in some way, I think the > references need to be normative. It seems to me that you're right. I'll move these for below "normative", and thus exclude them from this change. More feedback still welcome :-) Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 19:38:23 UTC