On 20-Oct-21 00:26, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I can think of two explanations.
> >>
> >> 1) the author is not familiar with the processes and thinks that I-D
> >> Nits it ordering the author to reclassify the reference
> >>
> >> 2) the author is familiar with the processes and is trying to game the
> >> system.
>
> > There's a possible 3rd explanation:
>
> > 3) the reference didn't need to be normative in the first place.
> > I certainly saw that a number of times as a Gen-ART reviewer.
>
> How can a third party point this out, unless they can read the document?
> The converse is worse: some informative reference that actually is normative,
> but only implementers two years later recognize this.
Well yes. That's exactly why, during my career as a Gen-ART reviewer, I tried
to pay attention to this whole issue. But there is scope for human error here,
so it's going to happen from time to time.
Brian
