still need review of normative vs. non-normative reference split.

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld%sun.com@localhost>]

Nobody got back to me from this request:

> Latest nit from the AD's on core documents: need to separate normative
> and non-normative references, per http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html
>
> I'd appreciate it if a couple people could play "spot the
> non-normative references" in the current drafts and share their
> results with me and/or the WG.  (I've done a quick look myself; the
> vast majority are normative).
>
> There will be a document re-spin after this exercise.
>
> Thank you for your assistance.

here's my take.  Anyone disagree with the categorization?

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-assignednumbers-01.txt:

	All references are normative.  (FIPS-46-3 in this context is a
		"historic normative")

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-architecture-13.txt

	Non-normative:
		RFC854 (telnet)
		RFC894 (IP over Ethernet)
		RFC1134 (PPP)
		RFC1232 (rlogin)
		(the above are refereced as part of an analsis of
		relative protocol overhead.)

	All others are normative; note that I think RFC1766 has been
		superceded.

	nits: references from text are [RFC-NNN]; references section
	has [RFCNNN].
		
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-connect-16.txt

	All normative

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-transport-15.txt

	Non-normative:
		[Orm96] (nit: typo in the reference)

	references rfc1766 (superceded)

	apparently unused:
		rfc2459 
		rfc1034

	there are references to Applied Cryptography for several
	algorithms.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-secsh-userauth-16.txt

	All normative.