Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] Make references normative (#4179)

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:38:15 -0700

Closes #4178.
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

  https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179

-- Commit Summary --

  * Make refs normative

-- File Changes --

    M draft-ietf-quic-recovery.md (8)

-- Patch Links --

https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179.patch
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179.diff

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2020 06:49:26 -0700

@ianswett approved this pull request.

I'm not the expert on what should be normative, but these were intentionally marked as informative references since they're all TCP specific RFCs.  The pipeACK reference in particular seems like an odd one.

If this is what the chairs want, then I'm ok with it as an editor, but these choices were intentional.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179#pullrequestreview-501625377

---

From: martinduke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:43:36 -0700

@martinduke requested changes on this pull request.

I see what @gloinul is saying, but I also see some wiggle room in RFC 3967, Section 1.1:

   -  When a reference to an example is made, such a reference need not
      be normative.  For example, text such as "an algorithm such as the
      one specified in [RFCxxxx] would be acceptable" indicates an
      informative reference, since that cited algorithm is just one of
      several possible algorithms that could be used.

I am also somewhat concerned that trying to get the downrefs into the registry is more likely to run into trouble (Sec 3)

This procedure should not be used if the proper step is to move the
   document to which the reference is being made into the appropriate
   category.  It is not intended as an easy way out of normal process.
   Rather, the procedure is intended for dealing with specific cases
   where putting particular documents into the required category is
   problematic and unlikely ever to happen.

Anyway, if we decide to proceed the PR is fine modulo my comment below.

> @@ -1133,8 +1133,8 @@ limits and so no advantage is gained by doing so.
 
 Endpoints choose the congestion controller that they use. Congestion controllers
 respond to reports of ECN-CE by reducing their rate, but the response may vary.
-Markings can be treated as equivalent to loss ({{?RFC3168}}), but other
-responses can be specified, such as ({{?RFC8511}}) or ({{?RFC8311}}).
+Markings can be treated as equivalent to loss ({{!RFC3168}}), but other

This section doesn't have normative language, so I don't see a need for these references to be normative.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179#pullrequestreview-502402830

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 18:32:48 -0700

@martinthomson commented on this pull request.

I don't think that any of these need to be made normative either.  Each of these is exemplary only.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179#pullrequestreview-502526350

---

From: ianswett <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 05:17:00 -0700

@ianswett requested changes on this pull request.

Removing my approval, since I don't really want to make this change and it appears others have similar opinions and letting the conversation on the issue play out.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179#pullrequestreview-503814618

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:05:25 -0700

Closing in favor of #4190 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179#issuecomment-707319962

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:05:26 -0700

Closed #4179.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/4179#event-3868117950