Check which references are normative and which are informative

[kmzs]

Is the browser-based apps draft necessary, for example?

I think it is not possible to publish an RFC which makes normative references to drafts. This would mean our RFC could not be published before the browser-based draft is an official RFC.

See for example the MISSREF state in the RFC Editor queue: https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/

[lonetis]

I don't see this draft being referenced anymore. Is WHATWG normative or informative (we have one in both parts)?

[kmzs]

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. An informative reference is not normative; rather, it only provides additional information. For example, an informative reference might provide background or historical information. Informative references are not required to implement the technology in the RFC.

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.

(Source: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/)

I think according to this both reference to whatwg.postmessage (L66 and L274) need to be normative. The reference to whatwg.coop (L288) is and should be informative.

[kmzs]

#19 addresses this and fixes some references.

There might be other references to check in the future. Therefore, I would keep this issue open.