On 10/21/2010 9:31 PM, SM wrote:
I forget; does the email architecture document talk about the
difference between a DNS domain and an ADMD?
...
A proper comparison of the two requirea more than one sentence. I'll
keep it short; ADMD is about administrative authority whereas a DNS
domain is of a list of labels. The reference to RFC 1034 is a
pointer for the reader to find out what is meant by "domain
right. I think that clear references and careful use of terminology should
suffice. The specification need not be a tutorial on the differences between
two technologies or RFCs that it cites. Correct?
Seems reasonable to me, though I don't think it needs to be
normative since that text is discussion rather than protocol specification.
That text is not normative. Having the reference as normative means
"please read the following document to understand what is written in
this document".
I am confused. In a technical specification a normative reference provides
material that is part of the technical detail. It's not for background or
explanation. It is for /use/.
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?
It would be highly unusual to use such a reference. I will most
likely nit about that.
Interestingly, the document that made it historical refers to it for more than
a
reference saying it has been replaced. That is, it makes a substantive comment
on it.
We need to be careful not to let odd formalities get in the way of basic
pragmatics.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html