On 2013-05-21, at 11:56, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/21/2013 11:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote: >> On 2013-05-21, at 11:50, Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 05/21/2013 11:46 AM, joel jaeggli wrote: >>>> With respect to the question of proposed standard. What changes if the requested status is informational? >>> I think just get rid of the normative language - SHOULDs, MUSTs, etc. >> From the perspective of giving guidance to people implementing these RRTypes, it seems to me that the normative language is useful, perhaps even necessary, to ensure interoperability. >> >> I admit I have not done my homework here; is the suggestion that the 2119 normative language cannot (MUST NOT? :-) appear in an informational document? > > 2119 language is intended to describe requirements of standards-track documents. Informational documents cannot impose requirements. Then I think we've just identified a reason why this document should be on the standards track. Joe