DSIG v1.1 Reference Review

Fredrick

My comments for the DSIG v1.1 references are below.  We can discuss at
todays meeting if necessary.  

Cynthia

a.	The reference for RFC 3986 is listed as URI rather than the RFC
number, as with some of the other RFC references. This is not wrong, just
inconsistent. I recommend using the RFC number 
b.	The reference for RFC 2141 is listed as URN. Same as above.
c.	The reference for RFC 2104 is listed as HMAC. Same as above.
d.	The reference for RFC 2616 is listed as HTTP11. Same as above.
e.	Reference [XPTR-XPOINTER] is listed as January 2001, but the
document says 11 September 2001.
f.	The reference for RFC 3061 is listed as URN-OID. Same as above.
g.	The reference for RFC 6090 is listed as ECC-ALGS. Same as above.
h.	The reference for RFC 4514 is listed as LDAP-DN. Same as above.
i.	The reference [X509V3] does not list a web site. The site to buy the
document is
http://webstore.iec.ch/servlet/GetPreview?id=40633&path=info_isoiec10021-8%7
Bed2.0%7Den.pdf; however, the latest version is 2008, not the 1999 version
listed in the reference.
j.	The reference for RFC 2560 is listed as OCSP. Same as above.
k.	RFC 1321, MD-5, is not listed in the references.
l.	The reference for RFC 3629 is listed as UTF-8. Same as above
m.	The reference for RFC 2781 is listed as UFT-16. Same as above. In
addition, it is listed under informational references, while UTF-8 is
normative. Both appear in the same sentence.
n.	The reference for RFC 4086 is listed as RANDOM. Same as above.
o.	RFC 4949 uses different web link from all other RFC's:
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4949.html as opposed to
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4949.txt. 
p.	The reference [RELAXNG-SCHEMA] lists the index of ISO documents
rather than the link for the document:
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c052348_ISO_IEC_197
57-2_2008(E).zip