>> Is there a reason why this working group requires that a document >> with an intended status of "Draft Standard" should have a normative >> reference to a RFC that has been obsoleted? > > I can't remember the disposition of this, but I think the problem is that we > want to use ToASCII while no current (i.e. not obsolete) document contains a > definition of it. I seem to recall one of the other co-authors looking into > it and finding this was acceptable, but I don't recall. Dave, can you > comment?
I suggest the two places that refer to IDNS say Internationalized domain names MUST berepresented as A-labels as described in [RFC5891]. That's a current standard, and A-labels are what ToASCII was supposed to produce. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
