> There remain two things left to do:
>
<snip/>
>
> 2. a check of idnits revealed that there are a few reference problems
> (including 3 Downref and 1 Obsolete normative reference).
(here's the actual idnits output..)
> ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2818
this ref was discussed on-list and deemed appropriate in that it's normative
for the definition of HTTPS.
>
> ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 3490 (Obsoleted by RFC 5890, RFC 5891)
RFC 3490 & RFC 3492 are normatively ref'd out of necessity as discussed on the
list. These two refs are annotated thusly..
This specification is referenced due to its ongoing
relevance to actual deployments for the foreseeable
future.
>
> ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5894
>
> ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5895
I believe we decided in the extensive list discussion of the IDNA stuff and
these references that we would keep these as normative refs because they really
are necessary to getting IDNA stuff right.
>
> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'UTS46'
this is a legit & proper reference. The only alteration I'd do is remove the
date on the reference since this spec is intermittently updated.
(done in my -11 working copy)
>
> -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'Unicode'
this is a legit & proper reference.
> This will come
> up with the RFC-Editor by the latest, so please revisit the references
> and check the idnits tool on the draft ASAP.
> Plus two warnings:
>
> == Missing Reference: 'I-D.draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-17' is mentioned
> on line 1839, but not defined
This is from the last paragraph in the acks appendix. I've altered it a bit to
see if idnits won't barf on it.
(done in my -11 working copy)
>
> == Outdated reference: A later version (-23) exists of
> draft-ietf-dane-protocol-19
Ok, I updated the ref to -dane-protocol-23 ... but the RFC Editor will
ultimately fix this up because the latter is in the rfc-editor-queue and not
yet published.
(done in my -11 working copy)
I've only made changes in my -11 working copy that I note above (and added
another person to acks)
Do you suggest any other changes or should I publish -11 ?
thanks,
=JeffH
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
