Hi, On 4 Jul 2012, at 00:07, =JeffH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > This one is fine, it is in the Downref registry, which means you don't even need to call it out explicitly in the write-up (but it doesn't hurt to do anyway) > > > > > ** 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. > > These are fine, just call them out explicitly in the write-up > > > > -- 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. > > These seem fine. > > > > 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 == Outdated reference: A later version (-23) exists of 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. > Right. > (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 ? I suggest you wait for the AD review (or other issues that might come up on the mailing list). _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
