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
