Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] AD review of draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-18

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 11:38:59 +0700

> Both of these are indeed normative in usage, but I was under the impression that one could not
> refer to I-Ds as normative.

One can't, so that means that this document will be held by the RFC
Editor in a "MISSREF" (missing reference) state until both of the I-D
are also in the RFC Editor queue.  Then this document will move ahead.

Barry

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:48:46 +0700

> are also in the RFC Editor queue.  Then this document will move ahead.

True, but being "afraid of a MISSREF" is not a good enough reason to pretend that a Normative reference is Informative.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:46:48 +0700

> reference is Informative.

Of course not, and I didn't mean to imply that it was.  I was
explaining that we *can* send the document forward with a missing
normative reference.  "We" do not have to wait for it to clear; the
RFC Editor will.

Barry

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2018 13:52:43 +0700

> normative reference.  "We" do not have to wait for it to clear; the

Then we are in full agreement.