Subject: [EAI] Re: gen-art LC review: draft-ietf-eai-framework-04

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 03:23:36 +0100

Robert Sparks wrote on the GenArt list:

> what's the advantage being sought for publishing this now?

Tell the world that the WG is making progress, and that NOW might
be a good time for potential implementors to check that it gets
the bloody details right.

> What's the risk that the document plan will need to change?
> (This question is motivated by the uncertainty in, for example,
> the second bullet of the document plan and the running train
> leading to things like the comment in the reference for [EAI-DSN]).

"This document, possibly with one or more supplemental ones"
should be good enough to get any RFC 2822 and MIME issues under
control.

> First sentence, last paragraph of 4.2: I can't parse this sentence
> and am not sure enough of what it's trying to say to suggest an
> alternative.

Confusing 4.2 and 5.2 I found two typos in the last paragraph of 5.2:
s/email storage/an email storage/ _or_ s/email storage/a mailbox/ ?
s/If this done/If this is done/

The first sentence in the last paragraph of 4.2 is in fact confusing,
the "presumably using UTF-8" is strange, what else, BOCU-1 ?  Here's
a fresh attempt:

| It seems clear that the time when email local parts are
| internationalized is also the time when email headers should shift
| to a full internationalized form, using UTF-8 rather than ASCII as
| the base character set, excluding protocol elements such as the
| header field names themselves.

In other words we don't want to allow a say German "für"/"von" where
we now have "for"/"from", but we want to allow raw UTF-8 in phrases
and unstructured header field bodies, not only in addresses.  That's
BTW a case of TINW, I like RFC 2047.

> The SHOULD in the last paragraph of 5.2 surprised me. Would it
> make sense to document in the draft why the WG decided to not make
> this MUST?

Beats me, was this about cases where the MDA does in fact know that
the receiver is only interested in the downgraded version ?

> Would it be reasonable to put document references in the bullets
> at the start of 4.1, and explicitly point to 4.2 instead of saying
> "the next subsection"?

The latter is certainly possible with xml2rfc, something like
<section ... anchor="bar"> and <xref target="bar" />

> "and similarly for POP" might lose a non-native-English reader.

Because there are two "similarly" in this sentence ?  The latter
could be replaced by (adding a comma) ", and likewise for POP3".

> The first sentence of section 5.1 is quite complex. Would breaking
> it into more sentences help?

Adding "a" to "non-delivery message" would also help, removing the
final "by some MTA in the path to the presumed destination" clause:

Of course the rejecting or bouncing MTA is somewhere on *a* path to
the presumed destination, otherwise it can't reject or bounce the
offending UTF8SMTP mail... :-)

Thanks for the review,

 Frank

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima