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