Subject: Re: [http-state] IDNA

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:45:32 -0700

Hi Julian,

 > The spec now (-13) says:

it said the same thing in -12 too :)

 > I recommend adding a link from the reference back to Section 6.3,
 > pointing out that this explains the presence of the reference.

Do you mean adding a link from the entry in the /references section/ ?  E.g...

    [RFC3490]  Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
               "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
               RFC 3490, March 2003. (See section 6.3)

?

I don't recall seeing another spec with such back links -- do you have an 
example? I spose this sort of spec hacking is more the purview of the RFC 
Editor, and am inclined to wait to see what they say (if anything). Or perhaps 
you're anticipating that putting such a backlink in the spec before they review 
it will save them from asking "why?" ?

In any case, from the text of the spec it should be clear why we're referencing 
3490 as well as 5890/5891. We do have that forward reference from 5.1.2 to 6.3.

thanks,

=JeffH

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 10:03:38 +0200

> RFC 3490, March 2003. (See section 6.3)

A bite more like:

[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, "Internationalizing
           Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)", RFC 3490, March 2003.

           See Section 6.3 for an explanation why the normative reference
           to an obsoleted specification is needed.

> I don't recall seeing another spec with such back links -- do you have
> an example? I spose this sort of spec hacking is more the purview of the
> RFC Editor, and am inclined to wait to see what they say (if anything).
> Or perhaps you're anticipating that putting such a backlink in the spec
> before they review it will save them from asking "why?" ?

The question will be asked, so the easier the answer is to find, the better.

> ...

Best regards, Julian