Subject: Re: [EAI] Consensus Result on Issue #1 - Parameter on MAIL

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 20:51:45 +0000

This works for me.  "If the client is aware" is a funny qualifier for SHOULD NOT, though the rest explains the logic fine and I can't think of a better way to say it.

-Shawn

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:03:42 -0500
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [EAI] Consensus Result on Issue #1 - Parameter on MAIL
To: [email-masked]
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

...
	If the envelope or message being sent requires the
	capabilities of these EAI extensions, the client MUST
	supply the UTF8SMTPbis parameter with the MAIL command.

	If the client is aware that the envelope or message
	being sent does not require any of the EAI extension
	capabilities, it SHOULD NOT supply the UTF8SMTPbis
	parameter with the MAIL command.  This specification
	does not require that the client inspect the message or
	otherwise go to extraordinary lengths to assure itself
	whether these EAI capabilities are required for the
	particular message.  However, in mixed or transitional
	environments in which EAI is not completely deployed,
	more precision on the part of the client (sender) may
	prevent unnecessary message rejections.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:43:50 -0500

--On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 20:51 +0000 Shawn Steele
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> This works for me.  "If the client is aware" is a funny
> qualifier for SHOULD NOT, though the rest explains the logic
> fine and I can't think of a better way to say it.

We have already done much the same thing in the discussion in
IDNA2008 as to whether one is required to validate an A-label
that one receives somehow (or can just look it up).  The
situations are a bit different and so are the convolutions, but
the principle is the same: if you know, you are obligated to
behave in a certain way but, if you have been able to avoid
knowing, there is no obligation to find out.

     john

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:59:55 -0800 (PST)

> This works for me.  "If the client is aware" is a funny qualifier for SHOULD
> NOT, though the rest explains the logic fine and I can't think of a better way
> to say it.

This works for me as well.

				Ned

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