On 8/31/15 1:04 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I agree with Alvaro and Stephen's comments. In particular, to my eye > [tor-rendezvous] should be a normative reference given item #3 in Section > 2. However, it seems more important to publish this document than to > re-issue the last call to call out a new downref.
I'm not sure that I agree that this would require a downref were it cited normatively. the citation is to a document maintained by the third party not to a informational draft describing the specification that is maintained by the third party. the tor project protocol specific meets some reasonable definitions of an open standard. That said this document is not a protocol specification, it is a resource reservation which was my rational for allowing this to be treated this as informational references. The requirement to specify dns protocol behavior with respect to a resource is a requirement of the 6761 resource reservation and it might well be a reason to cite that (which is cited already) but the current reference is essentially to the expectations of the protocol (tor) whereas the requirement is imposed on non(tor protocol) actors by the 6761 reservation. > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
