From internet-drafts@ietf.org  Wed Jun  1 19:56:18 2011
Return-Path: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D49E0771; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 19:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.576
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YAqIB1BMHZQj; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE9FE065B; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.55
Message-ID: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:56:17 -0700
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:56:18 -0000

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director=
ies. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Wo=
rking Group of the IETF.

	Title           : SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Address
	Author(s)       : Jiankang Yao
                          W. Mao
	Filename        : draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2011-06-01

   This document specifies an SMTP extension for transport and delivery
   of email messages with internationalized email addresses or header
   information.


A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt

From yaojk@cnnic.cn  Wed Jun  1 20:03:52 2011
Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A754E0796 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 20:03:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <wtOAqWntS4zV>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.643
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wtOAqWntS4zV for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 20:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BB5EE06A2 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed,  1 Jun 2011 20:03:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:03:38 +0800
Message-ID: <506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:03:38 +0800
Message-ID: <E67C5FFEE08542848C848748162077CE@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: <ima@ietf.org>
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 11:03:38 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 03:03:52 -0000
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From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Thu Jun  2 06:49:31 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A0CE0692 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7ari-oQXhecx for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CA8E065B for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.4] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p52DnNLi023945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 06:49:28 -0700
Message-ID: <4DE794DB.4010305@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:49:15 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 13:49:31 -0000

Two questions about the newest draft:


> Updates: RFC5321 and 5322                                   June 2, 2011

Does this document update RFC 5322?  If it does, which places in the document do 
that?

If someone is implementing RFC5322, how will they be able to find the 
modifications in this specification?  (The same question applies for RFC5321, of 
course.)

I did a scan of RFC5322 and looked for references to RFC5321, to see whether 
there were any places in the document that appear to incorporate normative 
detail from RFC5321.  These would be candidates for being updated by the current 
specification.

I did not find any text citing RFC5321 normatively.


> 3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension
...
>    An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server [RFC5321] and
>    [RFC5322] MAY convert an ASCII@U-label [RFC5890] address into the
>    format of ASCII@A-label [RFC5890] if the email address is in the
>    format of ASCII@U-label.

Is this defining a new capability that is specific to this specification?  I 
thought that converting from a U-label form to the A-label form was already 
defined in RFC5890.  If it is, then the specification here is redundant and I 
suggest it be replaced with a short, non-normative advisory statement, such as:

      [RFC5890] specifies rules for converting between U-label and A-label formats.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From johnl@iecc.com  Thu Jun  2 08:45:46 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E857E07F1 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 08:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.181
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D1VdaDmekgUi for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 08:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B465FE080B for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 08:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 58082 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2011 15:45:43 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 2 Jun 2011 15:45:43 -0000
Date: 2 Jun 2011 15:45:21 -0000
Message-ID: <20110602154521.3248.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4DE794DB.4010305@dcrocker.net>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:45:46 -0000

>> Updates: RFC5321 and 5322                                   June 2, 2011
>
>Does this document update RFC 5322?  If it does, which places in the
>document do that?

That appears to be a mistake, since I don't find any changes to 5322 either.
Presumably the updates to 5322 will be in 5335bis.

>> 3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension
>...
>>    An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server [RFC5321] and
>>    [RFC5322] MAY convert an ASCII@U-label [RFC5890] address into the
>>    format of ASCII@A-label [RFC5890] if the email address is in the
>>    format of ASCII@U-label.
>
>Is this defining a new capability that is specific to this specification?

Section 2.3.2.6 of RFC 5890 mentions the domain part of an e-mail address
as a domain name slot, and distinguishes between slots that are IDNA-aware
and those that aren't, but it doesn't offer any suggestions about when
one should convert.  I think it's reasonable to leave this in to say that
this ugly hack is specifically allowed.

Here's an unrelated question: in section 3.2, there is a list describing
what an EAI client can do when faced with a non-EAI server.  The first
item in the list says that the client rejects the message or creates
a DSN, which makes no sense as stated, since those are things a server
does.  I presume the intention is to describe the behavior of a relay
that is acting both as an SMTP client and server, facing in different
directions.  Assuming I guessed right, it would be good to say so.

R's,
John

From yaojk@cnnic.cn  Thu Jun  2 20:56:08 2011
Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733D2E0674 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 20:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <2glsgOhPNEnE>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.723
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.723 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.320, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2glsgOhPNEnE for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 20:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 43AFBE0678 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 20:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:56:04 +0800
Message-ID: <507073364.18175@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:56:04 +0800
Message-ID: <F2FABF25BF2D4D8A92D8F36CE7E3CEE5@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, <ima@ietf.org>
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><506983818.09307@cnnic.cn> <507022579.05335@cnnic.cn>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:56:03 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:56:08 -0000
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From yaojk@cnnic.cn  Thu Jun  2 20:59:11 2011
Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1B0E0678 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <HJZlwGE1qKMa>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.847
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.663, BAYES_20=-0.74, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJZlwGE1qKMa for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EDA3FE0674 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu,  2 Jun 2011 20:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:59:10 +0800
Message-ID: <507073550.25537@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 11:59:10 +0800
Message-ID: <67F6E127A1934CDCAB1BD9F0D6478DBF@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>, <ima@ietf.org>
References: <507029569.23890@cnnic.cn>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:59:09 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 03:59:12 -0000
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From chl@clerew.man.ac.uk  Fri Jun  3 06:59:11 2011
Return-Path: <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787ACE06E1 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 06:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.556
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.958, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4coJ8vR90a74 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 06:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-queue-1.mail.thdo.gradwell.net (outbound-queue-1.mail.thdo.gradwell.net [212.11.70.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0A6E065D for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 06:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound-edge-2.mail.thdo.gradwell.net (bonnie.gradwell.net [212.11.70.2]) by outbound-queue-1.mail.thdo.gradwell.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57ADB21F1D for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 14:59:08 +0100 (BST)
Received: from port-89.xxx.th.newnet.co.uk (HELO clerew.man.ac.uk) (80.175.135.89) (smtp-auth username postmaster%pop3.clerew.man.ac.uk, mechanism cram-md5) by outbound-edge-2.mail.thdo.gradwell.net (qpsmtpd/0.83) with (DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:59:08 +0100
Received: from clerew.man.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clerew.man.ac.uk (8.13.7/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p53Dx6h9017799 for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:59:07 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:59:06 +0100
To: IMA <ima@ietf.org>
From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <506983818.09307@cnnic.cn> <4DE794DB.4010305@dcrocker.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <op.vwh6gsd56hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <4DE794DB.4010305@dcrocker.net>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.25 (SunOS)
X-Gradwell-MongoId: 4de8e8ac.7e6c-2d34-2
X-Gradwell-Auth-Method: mailbox
X-Gradwell-Auth-Credentials: postmaster@pop3.clerew.man.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:59:11 -0000

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 14:49:15 +0100, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Two questions about the newest draft:
>
>
>> Updates: RFC5321 and 5322                                   June 2, 2011
>
> Does this document update RFC 5322?  If it does, which places in the  
> document do that?

Actually, it might have been better to say "Augments RFC5321 and 5322".  
What is defines is a superset of those - perhaps someday those will indeed  
be updated to EAI, but that is not for now.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Fri Jun  3 08:16:11 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABF7E06F7 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 08:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ii0t7uuI31u5 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 08:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F5EE06E9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 08:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p53FG1jp027286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Jun 2011 08:16:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4DE8FAA7.6050300@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:15:51 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: YAO Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>	<507022579.05335@cnnic.cn> <507073364.18175@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <507073364.18175@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf-eai <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 15:16:11 -0000

Jiankang,

Thank you for the quick response and explanation.

My responses...


On 6/2/2011 8:56 PM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
> The issue of whether rfc5336bis updates rfc5322 was discussed a few months
> ago. finally, we decided to add the following section to address this
> concern:
>
> In section 1.3.  Updates to Other Specifications
>
> This specification modifies RFC 5321 by permitting internationalized email
> address in the envelope.  It also updates some syntax rules defined in RFC
> 5321.  It modifies RFC 5322 by permitting data formats defined in
> [RFC5335bis].

When one document "updates" another, it's core action is to change text within
the target document.  Hence RFC5335bis very much DOES modify (update) RFC5322.
And, of course, RFC5336bis DOES modify RFC5321.

However, RFC5336bis makes no changes to the text of RFC5322.  The change that
you cite is actually made by RFC5335bis.

The fact that RFC5336bis defines use of the "extended" RFC5322 message format is
important, but the enhancement that permits this use is a change to RFC5321, not 
to RFC5322.

Here is a simple test for when the RFC Updates field is appropriate to use:  If
someone is building software that implements the target (original) 
specification, does the document claiming to Update the target cause a change to 
the software?

(An update might also make changes that do not affect software, such as adding 
text to clarify some aspect of the original specification.  However I think that 
the software test is simple and useful for situations such as we have here.)


Hence, RFC5336bis needs to cite RFC5335bis AND RFC5322, but RFC5336bis does not 
"update" RFC5322.

(By the way, note that the use of this SMTP extension does not /require/ using 
any of RFC5335bis!  It is entirely legal to have the SMTP option be used and 
then to transmit a legacy ASCII message that conforms to RFC5322 and uses none 
of RFC5335bis...)


>> I thought that converting from a U-label form to the A-label form was
>> already defined in RFC5890.
>
> I have a quick scan of rfc5890, which does not explicitly say it.
>
>
>> If it is, then the specification here is redundant and I suggest it be
>> replaced with a short, non-normative advisory statement, such as:
>>
>> [RFC5890] specifies rules for converting between U-label and A-label
>> formats.
>>
>
> how about the one below:
>
>
> An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server  and may convert an
> ASCII@U-label  address into the format of ASCII@A-label if the email address
> is in the format of ASCII@U-label.

Note that your text uses the word "may".  In fact, your text is a specification 
of protocol detail, rather than a citation to detail in another document.  And 
indeed it is redundant with text in RFC5890:

> 2.3.2.1. IDNA-valid strings, A-label, and U-label
...
>    o  A "U-label" is an IDNA-valid string of Unicode characters, in
...
>                                                       Conversions
>       between U-labels and A-labels are performed according to the
>       "Punycode" specification [RFC3492], adding or removing the ACE
>       prefix as needed.

Again, I think that the current document should contain only a very simple 
statement, such as I suggested:

      [RFC5890] specifies rules for converting between U-label and A-label formats.


d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Fri Jun  3 14:06:02 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F2EE07DE for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 14:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2z4N+8lvb0Ns for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 14:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F179BE07DB for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri,  3 Jun 2011 14:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:06:01 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.90]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Fri, 3 Jun 2011 14:06:01 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt 
Thread-Index: AcwiMUp0Y+YwKXdCQcyLjlPqltMyRw==
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 21:06:00 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7DBEFF@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.78]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:06:02 -0000

> An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server  and may convert an
> ASCII@U-label  address into the format of ASCII@A-label if the email addr=
ess
> is in the format of ASCII@U-label.

I think this is extraneous and not necessary.

I think we mentioned before that when EAI-aware servers are communicating w=
ith legacy SMTP servers, then the EAI standards no longer apply.  Then the =
legacy SMTP RFCs apply.  The IDN RFCs are already clear about that happens =
to U-Labels in an ASCII environment, so this isn't necessary.

Also, with a "strict" interpretation of the legacy SMTP behavior, the EAI R=
FCs wouldn't apply, which would include this RFC and any of this language w=
ithin it.

Eg: Legacy SMTP + IDN "works fine" regardless of these RFCs.  Nothing we ad=
d here will help or hinder that.  *IF* we want to address this type of thin=
g, then it should go into a separate document about mitigating the legacy c=
ompatibility issues.  (Eg: alternate routes, try different addresses, etc.)

-=3DShawn=20

From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Sat Jun  4 08:49:35 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60801E0775 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat,  4 Jun 2011 08:49:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rO3s9MMolGGt for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat,  4 Jun 2011 08:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9704E0773 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat,  4 Jun 2011 08:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p54FnPXN027989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 08:49:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4DEA53FB.4080303@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:49:15 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7DBEFF@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7DBEFF@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 04 Jun 2011 08:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:49:35 -0000

On 6/3/2011 2:06 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:
>> An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server  and may convert an
>> ASCII@U-label  address into the format of ASCII@A-label if the email
>> address is in the format of ASCII@U-label.
>
> I think this is extraneous and not necessary.
>
> I think we mentioned before that when EAI-aware servers are communicating
> with legacy SMTP servers, then the EAI standards no longer apply.


Oh.  Right.

I completely missed that the conversion issue is appropriate for gateways 
between UTF-8 and ASCII environments, but no longer is needed for the current 
specifications, because the current specifications require a UTF8-clean 
environment, end-to-end.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From yaojk@cnnic.cn  Tue Jun  7 00:54:39 2011
Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B783411E8081 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 00:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <Q0JSTTYbNxjd>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.184
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q0JSTTYbNxjd for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 00:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BE9411E807A for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 00:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:54:33 +0800
Message-ID: <507433273.26110@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:54:33 +0800
Message-ID: <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "Shawn Steele" <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, <ima@ietf.org>
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:54:32 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 07:54:39 -0000

DQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIlNoYXduIFN0ZWVsZSIgPFNo
YXduLlN0ZWVsZUBtaWNyb3NvZnQuY29tPg0KVG86IDxpbWFAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpTZW50OiBTYXR1
cmRheSwgSnVuZSAwNCwgMjAxMSA1OjA2IEFNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW0VBSV0gSS1EIEFjdGlv
bjogZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1lYWktcmZjNTMzNmJpcy0xMC50eHQNCg0KDQo+PiBBbiBFQUktYXdhcmUg
TVVBL01TQSBzZW5kaW5nIHRvIGEgbGVnYWN5IFNNVFAgc2VydmVyICBhbmQgbWF5IGNvbnZlcnQg
YW4NCj4+IEFTQ0lJQFUtbGFiZWwgIGFkZHJlc3MgaW50byB0aGUgZm9ybWF0IG9mIEFTQ0lJQEEt
bGFiZWwgaWYgdGhlIGVtYWlsIGFkZHJlc3MNCj4+IGlzIGluIHRoZSBmb3JtYXQgb2YgQVNDSUlA
VS1sYWJlbC4NCj4gDQo+IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhpcyBpcyBleHRyYW5lb3VzIGFuZCBub3QgbmVjZXNz
YXJ5Lg0KPiANCj4gSSB0aGluayB3ZSBtZW50aW9uZWQgYmVmb3JlIHRoYXQgd2hlbiBFQUktYXdh
cmUgc2VydmVycyBhcmUgY29tbXVuaWNhdGluZyB3aXRoIGxlZ2FjeSBTTVRQIHNlcnZlcnMsIHRo
ZW4gdGhlIEVBSSBzdGFuZGFyZHMgbm8gbG9uZ2VyIGFwcGx5LiAgVGhlbiB0aGUgbGVnYWN5IFNN
VFAgUkZDcyBhcHBseS4gIFRoZSBJRE4gUkZDcyBhcmUgYWxyZWFkeSBjbGVhciBhYm91dCB0aGF0
IGhhcHBlbnMgdG8gVS1MYWJlbHMgaW4gYW4gQVNDSUkgZW52aXJvbm1lbnQsIHNvIHRoaXMgaXNu
J3QgbmVjZXNzYXJ5Lg0KPiANCj4NCg0KSWYgbm8gb25lIG9iamVjdHMgaXQsIEkgd2lsbCByZW1v
dmUgIHRoZSBwYXJhcHJhcGggYWJvdmUgaW4gdGhlIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uLg0KDQpKaWFua2FuZyBZ
YW8NCg0KPiBBbHNvLCB3aXRoIGEgInN0cmljdCIgaW50ZXJwcmV0YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIGxlZ2Fj
eSBTTVRQIGJlaGF2aW9yLCB0aGUgRUFJIFJGQ3Mgd291bGRuJ3QgYXBwbHksIHdoaWNoIHdvdWxk
IGluY2x1ZGUgdGhpcyBSRkMgYW5kIGFueSBvZiB0aGlzIGxhbmd1YWdlIHdpdGhpbiBpdC4NCj4g
DQo+IEVnOiBMZWdhY3kgU01UUCArIElETiAid29ya3MgZmluZSIgcmVnYXJkbGVzcyBvZiB0aGVz
ZSBSRkNzLiAgTm90aGluZyB3ZSBhZGQgaGVyZSB3aWxsIGhlbHAgb3IgaGluZGVyIHRoYXQuICAq
SUYqIHdlIHdhbnQgdG8gYWRkcmVzcyB0aGlzIHR5cGUgb2YgdGhpbmcsIHRoZW4gaXQgc2hvdWxk
IGdvIGludG8gYSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBkb2N1bWVudCBhYm91dCBtaXRpZ2F0aW5nIHRoZSBsZWdhY3kg
Y29tcGF0aWJpbGl0eSBpc3N1ZXMuICAoRWc6IGFsdGVybmF0ZSByb3V0ZXMsIHRyeSBkaWZmZXJl
bnQgYWRkcmVzc2VzLCBldGMuKQ0KPiANCj4gLT1TaGF3biANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gSU1BIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBJTUFA
aWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9pbWE=


From yaojk@cnnic.cn  Tue Jun  7 02:03:59 2011
Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C39721F85F0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 02:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <4y9nEIvD2z7u>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.114
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.114 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4y9nEIvD2z7u for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 02:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A95A21F85EE for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 02:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:03:55 +0800
Message-ID: <507437435.15571@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:03:55 +0800
Message-ID: <B6B5B00B165E4F6DB3819334DA28AFE4@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>	<507022579.05335@cnnic.cn> <507073364.18175@cnnic.cn> <507114171.21842@cnnic.cn>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:03:53 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6090
Cc: ietf-eai <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: [EAI] RFC5336bis updates RFC5322 or not ?
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:03:59 -0000
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=


From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Tue Jun  7 08:03:15 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6498311E8146 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 08:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WjF+5ND47OGd for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 08:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA02011E8143 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 08:03:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.86.9) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:03:13 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.90]) by TK5EX14HUBC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.86.9]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:03:12 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
Thread-Index: AQHMJOgnzlbP4MtC4k+Y8CGpR1Q/ipSx/iO+
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 15:03:11 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>, <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF>
In-Reply-To: <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:03:15 -0000
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From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Tue Jun  7 09:46:20 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC7BB11E8084 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EkK3KJvnmKxp for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 09:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E891811E8076 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.101.0.144] (64.1.211.248.ptr.us.xo.net [64.1.211.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p57GkDrp012157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 09:46:18 -0700
Message-ID: <4DEE55D1.8010506@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:46:09 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>, <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:46:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:46:20 -0000

On 6/7/2011 8:03 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:
> I don't object ;-)


+1

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From jyee@afilias.info  Tue Jun  7 09:50:30 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EF6D11E817E for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 09:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cl1oNcaxf93n for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 09:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A81911E817B for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 09:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms6.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.112] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QTzU4-0002PT-5a for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:50:28 +0000
Received: from mail-ew0-f50.google.com ([209.85.215.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QTzU4-0006os-7o for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:50:28 +0000
Received: by mail-ew0-f50.google.com with SMTP id 10so1885837ewy.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.103.82 with SMTP id j18mr2592489ebo.0.1307465427802; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x3sm4057936eef.3.2011.06.07.09.50.24 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 09:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 12:50:24 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2917E940-2C07-4094-8535-8EB19081A306@afilias.info>
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>, <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 16:50:30 -0000

Shawn and all,

=46rom your original comment that I believed that you are not against =
the conversion. IDN RFCs say that U-labels are preferred IDNA aware =
application and no prohibition on using A-labels. As you say IDN RFCs =
cover {U,A}-label usage, this paragraph is to reinforce it in EAI =
context. This conversion is quiet specific and worth to document here, =
to maximize deliverability (my personal opinion). I would suggest to =
reword it rather than remove it.  And IIRC, we discussed to have this =
paragraph as bulletin 4 in the same section in the past, may worth to =
think about it again.

Original:
   An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server [RFC5321] and
   [RFC5322] MAY convert an ASCII@U-label [RFC5890] address into the
   format of ASCII@A-label [RFC5890] if the email address is in the
   format of ASCII@U-label.

Suggestion (may move it as point 4):
    EAI-aware MUA/MSA SHOULD use U-label [RFC5980] where possible, but =
if the address is in the format of ASCII@U-label, the EAI-aware MUA/MSA =
MAY convert the address to ASCII@A-label [RFC5980] format to try =
delivering the mail thru legacy SMTP server [RFC5321] [RFC5322].=20
  =20
Thoughts everyone?

Best,
Joseph

On 2011-06-07, at 11:03 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:

> I don't object ;-)
>=20
> -Shawn
>=20
> =EF=A3=A2=EF=A3=90=EF=A3=A7=EF=A3=9B =EF=A3=A2=EF=A3=A3=EF=A3=97=EF=A3=94=
=EF=A3=99
> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
>=20
>=20
> ________________________________________
> From: Jiankang YAO [yaojk@cnnic.cn]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:54 AM
> To: Shawn Steele; ima@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Shawn Steele" <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
> To: <ima@ietf.org>
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 5:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
>=20
>=20
>>> An EAI-aware MUA/MSA sending to a legacy SMTP server  and may =
convert an
>>> ASCII@U-label  address into the format of ASCII@A-label if the email =
address
>>> is in the format of ASCII@U-label.
>>=20
>> I think this is extraneous and not necessary.
>>=20
>> I think we mentioned before that when EAI-aware servers are =
communicating with legacy SMTP servers, then the EAI standards no longer =
apply.  Then the legacy SMTP RFCs apply.  The IDN RFCs are already clear =
about that happens to U-Labels in an ASCII environment, so this isn't =
necessary.
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> If no one objects it, I will remove  the parapraph above in the new =
version.
>=20
> Jiankang Yao
>=20
>> Also, with a "strict" interpretation of the legacy SMTP behavior, the =
EAI RFCs wouldn't apply, which would include this RFC and any of this =
language within it.
>>=20
>> Eg: Legacy SMTP + IDN "works fine" regardless of these RFCs.  Nothing =
we add here will help or hinder that.  *IF* we want to address this type =
of thing, then it should go into a separate document about mitigating =
the legacy compatibility issues.  (Eg: alternate routes, try different =
addresses, etc.)
>>=20
>> -=3DShawn
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMA mailing list
>> IMA@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Tue Jun  7 11:25:44 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B970F11E80A6 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LpEZyucgx76F for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C189F11E8092 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.48) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:25:43 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.90]) by TK5EX14HUBC105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.48]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:25:43 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
Thread-Index: AQHMJOgnzlbP4MtC4k+Y8CGpR1Q/ipSx/iO+gACTYgD//6IlIA==
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:25:42 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7EE7EA@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>, <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <2917E940-2C07-4094-8535-8EB19081A306@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <2917E940-2C07-4094-8535-8EB19081A306@afilias.info>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.76]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:25:44 -0000
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From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Tue Jun  7 11:26:43 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23D9011E8149 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2P4o0DMHhBsu for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BBB11E8139 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.101.0.144] (64.1.211.248.ptr.us.xo.net [64.1.211.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p57IQVVL014489 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:26:36 -0700
Message-ID: <4DEE6D54.8010705@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:26:28 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>, <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF>	<E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <2917E940-2C07-4094-8535-8EB19081A306@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <2917E940-2C07-4094-8535-8EB19081A306@afilias.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:26:43 -0000

On 6/7/2011 9:50 AM, Joseph Yee wrote:
> Suggestion (may move it as point 4): EAI-aware MUA/MSA SHOULD use U-label
> [RFC5980] where possible, but if the address is in the format of
> ASCII@U-label, the EAI-aware MUA/MSA MAY convert the address to ASCII@A-label
> [RFC5980] format to try delivering the mail thru legacy SMTP server [RFC5321]
> [RFC5322].
>
> Thoughts everyone?


1. What is the reason for making any normative statement here?  What improvement 
is made in system behavior?  What bad things happen if systems do not follow the 
normative statements?

2. The "permission" contained in the second normative statement ("MAY") is 
redundant.  Systems can choose to do this or not do this, independent of this 
normative statement.  Hence, this has no effect on interoperability or other 
functionality.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Tue Jun  7 11:59:02 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E049221F8516 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qXWUHvWCnjdR for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D96B21F8515 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue,  7 Jun 2011 11:59:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.101.0.144] (64.1.211.248.ptr.us.xo.net [64.1.211.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p57IwuUp015316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:59:01 -0700
Message-ID: <4DEE74ED.3030303@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:58:53 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>	<507022579.05335@cnnic.cn>	<507073364.18175@cnnic.cn> <507114171.21842@cnnic.cn> <507437435.15571@cnnic.cn>
In-Reply-To: <507437435.15571@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:59:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis updates RFC5322 or not ?
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:59:03 -0000

On 6/7/2011 2:03 AM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
> If we can say "RFC5336bis  modifies RFC 5322 by permitting data formats defined in
> [RFC5335bis].", then we can say RFC5336bis updates RFC5322. otherwise, not.


To repeat:

      RFC5335bis is the document that modifies RFC 5322.

      RFC5336bis specifies support for that modification.  Specifying support 
for something is not the same as modifying it.  That is, specifying that 
something is used does not "change" the thing that is being used.

      The modification in RFC5336bis is to change RFC5321, to support 
RFC5335bis.  That is, the change done by RFC5336bis is to SMTP; it does not 
change the message format specifications.

Let me try a comparable example:

      Suppose I operate a conference that is conducted in the language(s) 
specified by some other organization.

      Suppose that that other organization's list originally specified only 
English, but then it modifies the list to include English and Mandarin.

      I must make many changes to the operation of the conference, in order to 
support the language that was added to the list.  However my work does not mean 
that I have changed the list.  It means that I /support/ the list.

Supporting something is very different from modifying (updating) it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From jason@exchange.microsoft.com  Wed Jun  8 14:49:30 2011
Return-Path: <jason@exchange.microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E6D021F84D9 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  8 Jun 2011 14:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vUpkmdlaBhjQ for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  8 Jun 2011 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.exchange.microsoft.com (mail1.exchange.microsoft.com [131.107.1.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3B0621F84D7 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed,  8 Jun 2011 14:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from df-h14-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.78.140) by DF-G14-01.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.87.87) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:49:23 -0700
Received: from DF-MBX-E1502.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.20.142) by DF-H14-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.78.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.289.8; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:49:23 -0700
Received: from PIO-MBX-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([fe80::d31:169:a767:f84e]) by DF-MBX-E1502.exchange.corp.microsoft.com ([fe80::9cd9:57f2:ccc2:2df0%10]) with mapi id 15.00.0204.001; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 14:49:23 -0700
From: Jason Nelson <jason@exchange.microsoft.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
Thread-Index: AQHMJOgi238oBD2hmUS7wS3og8IlGJSyc5GAgAAd9QCAABqgAIABVW/g
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 21:49:22 +0000
Message-ID: <c4eeac2beb134612bb06d1027d49e9c8@PIO-MBX-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <507135171.03236@cnnic.cn>, <23F8F41A2E9B44499B46B8643CAA9A93@LENOVO47E041CF> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7ECC21@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <2917E940-2C07-4094-8535-8EB19081A306@afilias.info> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7EE7EA@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D7EE7EA@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:20:2:356c:59ee:86e7:74eb]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:49:30 -0000
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From johnl@iecc.com  Wed Jun  8 15:45:50 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD3711E80A3 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  8 Jun 2011 15:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h5nSLOkGjUP5 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed,  8 Jun 2011 15:45:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2D611E808D for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed,  8 Jun 2011 15:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 32535 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2011 22:45:40 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 8 Jun 2011 22:45:40 -0000
Date: 8 Jun 2011 22:45:18 -0000
Message-ID: <20110608224518.35017.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <c4eeac2beb134612bb06d1027d49e9c8@PIO-MBX-02.exchange.corp.microsoft.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:45:50 -0000

>I agree.  While I am 100% for a downgrade solution I believe it is
>not part of the core documentation, so long as the core documents do
>not set prohibitions that would make downgrade by a submission server
>illegal.

I think bullet #2 in the middle of 3.2 makes it clear that submission
servers can do whatever it takes, so on further consideration I agree,
take out the last sentence in 3.2 and ship it.

R's,
John

From jyee@afilias.info  Mon Jun 13 13:22:57 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E4611E80FD for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lhu4jEhlUwGP for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EEBF11E80D7 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QWDeq-0006sR-9C for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:22:48 +0000
Received: from mail-px0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QWDeq-0000Iz-59 for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:22:48 +0000
Received: by pxj1 with SMTP id 1so3229625pxj.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.4.233 with SMTP id n9mr2524393pbn.128.1307996567532; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id f3sm4911567pbj.64.2011.06.13.13.22.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:22:46 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <4DEE74ED.3030303@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:22:44 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <34D305AD-4D48-43EA-A064-D080DE71C079@afilias.info>
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>	<507022579.05335@cnnic.cn>	<507073364.18175@cnnic.cn> <507114171.21842@cnnic.cn> <507437435.15571@cnnic.cn> <4DEE74ED.3030303@dcrocker.net>
To: Dave CROCKER <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis updates RFC5322 or not ?
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:22:57 -0000

To WG,

Our RFC5336bis draft used to extend syntax rules in RFC5332 hence we =
have "Updates RFC5322" in the header of the draft.  The recent change in =
RFC5336bis has no more rules involved from RFC5332, and there is nothing =
else in the draft (-10) that would update RFC5322, so it is correct to =
remove "Updates RFC5322"

There are more for RFC "Updates" header.  An RFC XXXX "Updates RFC YYYY" =
if XXXX changes the base specification of YYYY.  If the draft only =
extends another, but does not alter behaviour or formal syntax rules, it =
does not consider as "Updates" since the base specification has not =
change.

In RFC5336bis, the work is an extension to base SMTP, there is *no =
change to RFC5322 and even RFC5321*.  Our draft does not alter any =
current behaviour, nor it changes RFC5321's base specification.  We =
extends the syntax but did not change any existing rules.

The current RFC5336bis contains all of RFC5336 and modify all necessary =
parts.  The -bis is to end the experiment and replaces it.  The current =
RFC5336bis draft is correct in trying to *obsoletes* RFC5335 rather than =
updating it.

So the next revision of 5336bis (-11) will *not update any RFC*, as the =
WG work is to  extend, not modify, the SMTP protocol.  Although the =
draft does not update any RFCs, it should reference RFC5321 and RFC5322, =
and already did.

We shouldn't spend more time on the update header discussion anymore, =
it's minor.  We need to focus on the technical details of RFC5336bis and =
other drafts.  We're 6 weeks from next IETF, it may sounds a lot but =
time flies!

As co-chair, I ruled this topic closed and need no further discussion, =
unless new issues provided. =20

Thanks.
Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI



On 2011-06-07, at 2:58 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>=20
>=20
> On 6/7/2011 2:03 AM, Jiankang YAO wrote:
>> If we can say "RFC5336bis  modifies RFC 5322 by permitting data =
formats defined in
>> [RFC5335bis].", then we can say RFC5336bis updates RFC5322. =
otherwise, not.
>=20
>=20
> To repeat:
>=20
>     RFC5335bis is the document that modifies RFC 5322.
>=20
>     RFC5336bis specifies support for that modification.  Specifying =
support for something is not the same as modifying it.  That is, =
specifying that something is used does not "change" the thing that is =
being used.
>=20
>     The modification in RFC5336bis is to change RFC5321, to support =
RFC5335bis.  That is, the change done by RFC5336bis is to SMTP; it does =
not change the message format specifications.
>=20
> Let me try a comparable example:
>=20
>     Suppose I operate a conference that is conducted in the =
language(s) specified by some other organization.
>=20
>     Suppose that that other organization's list originally specified =
only English, but then it modifies the list to include English and =
Mandarin.
>=20
>     I must make many changes to the operation of the conference, in =
order to support the language that was added to the list.  However my =
work does not mean that I have changed the list.  It means that I =
/support/ the list.
>=20
> Supporting something is very different from modifying (updating) it.
>=20
> d/
>=20
> --=20
>=20
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


From jyee@afilias.info  Mon Jun 13 13:54:01 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425C821F8561 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1JmTclxf-iRm for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E51521F855E for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QWE91-0005Ee-5W for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:53:59 +0000
Received: from mail-qw0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QWE91-0001KC-4j for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:53:59 +0000
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so2540037qwe.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.200.200 with SMTP id ex8mr4441765qab.395.1307998438651; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm4808231qcb.34.2011.06.13.13.53.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <20110608224518.35017.qmail@joyce.lan>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:53:55 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7A7DEF8-0307-4331-B834-B9D962EE4450@afilias.info>
References: <20110608224518.35017.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-10.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:54:01 -0000

It covers MSA only, but more people considered the last sentence not =
part of scope for this draft and I agreed.  So the next revision should =
take out the last sentence in section 3.2.

Joseph

On 2011-06-08, at 6:45 PM, John Levine wrote:

>> I agree.  While I am 100% for a downgrade solution I believe it is
>> not part of the core documentation, so long as the core documents do
>> not set prohibitions that would make downgrade by a submission server
>> illegal.
>=20
> I think bullet #2 in the middle of 3.2 makes it clear that submission
> servers can do whatever it takes, so on further consideration I agree,
> take out the last sentence in 3.2 and ship it.
>=20
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Mon Jun 13 15:01:44 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7636E21F853A for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rQSuMHi8--QS for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCC2A21F8548 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5DM1HIC010270 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:01:22 -0700
Message-ID: <4DF688A8.3030709@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:01:12 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
References: <20110602025617.22575.2077.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com><506983818.09307@cnnic.cn>	<507022579.05335@cnnic.cn>	<507073364.18175@cnnic.cn> <507114171.21842@cnnic.cn> <507437435.15571@cnnic.cn> <4DEE74ED.3030303@dcrocker.net> <34D305AD-4D48-43EA-A064-D080DE71C079@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <34D305AD-4D48-43EA-A064-D080DE71C079@afilias.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis updates RFC5322 or not ?
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 22:01:44 -0000

On 6/13/2011 1:22 PM, Joseph Yee wrote:
> As co-chair, I ruled this topic closed and need no further discussion, unless new issues provided.

Excellent.  Thanks!

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Tue Jun 14 12:42:27 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928DE1F0C6B for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ndw17ZmJOgtP for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721451F0C44 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.61) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:42:25 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.90]) by TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.61]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:42:23 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Issues
Thread-Index: AcwqyxkD0BNi9pRuTCadq0ClTgCs/g==
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:42:23 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.74]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [EAI] Issues
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:42:27 -0000

> On 6/13/2011 1:22 PM, Joseph Yee wrote:
> > As co-chair, I ruled this topic closed and need no further discussion, =
unless new issues provided.

> Excellent.  Thanks!

Is there a list of outstanding things that might be preventing the docs fro=
m being submitted?  I'm not sure I know where we're at.

Thanks,
Shawn

From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Wed Jun 15 13:58:15 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3194E21F848E for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h4ADPu6L0BAf for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99C4C21F8465 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5FKw8RP027965 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:14 -0700
Message-ID: <4DF91CE0.4030607@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:08 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-eai <ima@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:58:15 -0000

Hello.

Please forgive my imposing an off-topic question to the list.  Since it pertains 
to internationalized domain names, I'm hoping you can help.

I work with a new, open systems group that is contributing to the development 
and use of DKIM and related trust technologies:

    <http://www.trusteddomain.org/>

We would like to assist efforts that confirm the use of internationalized domain 
names with DKIM and want to create some domain names for use in the testing. 
We'd like to register a few domain names that are variants of trusteddomain.org.

Unfortunately, none of us is fluent in languages that would be helpful for the 
testing.  So I used Google Translate to guess at some possible domain names.

These are the strings that it offered, as interpretations of "trusted domain":

    chinese - �信任的域

    japanese - ドメインを信頼

    swedish - betrodda domänen?

My question is whether Google Translate produced translations that are correct 
for our use.  If these have problems, what strings should we use?

Thanks!

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From yangwooko@gmail.com  Wed Jun 15 18:06:06 2011
Return-Path: <yangwooko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC5621F860D for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1pRbM0XzDd+p for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE61B21F860B for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so1027081vxg.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yr+DRBa8GHUv9a1AKkS6ePMOWeHwV/Z9deP+qTCBuHs=; b=q5Tvc9PBA5ol0VZd3ciiochvy/9Zl+GsFd31WigvQUvkRXvDGKuGZxVYpQgY9KvRpr 0pSJqequwkcg8X53IH+JeBhgUHU4MMdfAaaLObPhDoSlHP26V/uoYORV6PV2iDjo+0to t4xWPqZH8wWN5YixS+YRDY15O2uxbVPL75BgI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=IXCa/U1SfHLV/3jFTazhIpCwjn09Lbph6PxJijKjpde564GuI7AS0nF8fZRoV+Kzg8 9o4rNhNhawoWL0CON8RKF13JUiOIFvo+EnccOUSfccq2Z1qQWciapTmJn7fchSjCbhsV ukUfjlLUtEngFoXI5t+czu7U0CZ01rvU2PNQU=
Received: by 10.52.111.136 with SMTP id ii8mr420828vdb.72.1308186365070; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yangwooko@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.168.130 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:05:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DF91CE0.4030607@dcrocker.net>
References: <4DF91CE0.4030607@dcrocker.net>
From: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:05:45 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9StsjLPODz9jWPd69rj7w2Hs5ZE
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=v_XzRASNEKOWhD8si5n9nxE7D4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ietf-eai <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 01:06:06 -0000

We, Koreans, use Chinese derived words very heavily though usually
written in Hagul rather than Chinese characters. As one of those
Koreans, given translation is not acceptable at all. Better
translation is =E4=BF=A1=E8=B3=B4=EF=A6=B4=E5=9F=9F or =E4=BF=A1=E8=B3=B4=
=E5=9F=9F. Since these strings are written in
traditional Chinese characters, their simplified Chinese character
variations are also required.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Please forgive my imposing an off-topic question to the list. =C2=A0Since=
 it
> pertains to internationalized domain names, I'm hoping you can help.
>
> I work with a new, open systems group that is contributing to the
> development and use of DKIM and related trust technologies:
>
> =C2=A0 <http://www.trusteddomain.org/>
>
> We would like to assist efforts that confirm the use of internationalized
> domain names with DKIM and want to create some domain names for use in th=
e
> testing. We'd like to register a few domain names that are variants of
> trusteddomain.org.
>
> Unfortunately, none of us is fluent in languages that would be helpful fo=
r
> the testing. =C2=A0So I used Google Translate to guess at some possible d=
omain
> names.
>
> These are the strings that it offered, as interpretations of "trusted
> domain":
>
> =C2=A0 chinese - =E5=8F=97=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E7=9A=84=E5=9F=9F
>
> =C2=A0 japanese - =E3=83=89=E3=83=A1=E3=82=A4=E3=83=B3=E3=82=92=E4=BF=A1=
=E9=A0=BC
>
> =C2=A0 swedish - betrodda dom=C3=A4nen?
>
> My question is whether Google Translate produced translations that are
> correct for our use. =C2=A0If these have problems, what strings should we=
 use?
>
> Thanks!
>
> d/
>
> --
>
> =C2=A0Dave Crocker
> =C2=A0Brandenburg InternetWorking
> =C2=A0bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>



--=20
a human known as yangwooko@gmail.com @ gtalk

From yangwooko@gmail.com  Wed Jun 15 19:34:38 2011
Return-Path: <yangwooko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 442FA11E80DC for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.977
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xk8Co-LNRQax for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A4D11E80A4 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxg33 with SMTP id 33so1073706vxg.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZheoLN0oDIhyeF+Qav7TFS/vfuYEITEnKEIX7YVq2H0=; b=Z9WXaHsCrvgnWaiOFNDsZwLjS9m9aIlH/nSUK1CC7xouALWo3P8c9YgcnJRaAfAOrj dLqoIe32u8LSerzHH+3nyjFrhuXg55lZz+6/YlGyZqeOrA+z0sbBZhixmPaDlN3PZ8qM Tt1BnU7QEm99nX9rXqEvx4oZML7adNZw10FNE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=PbWtlSOfJ1fUd8EewYgBGx/iQmladdwvwPw8YJ3NqDy5PlWIk5wMV9+jfjfGZ4SZ4B 3AHCiUt9mAl7IJta/i0kFbVjh3gi2hjlQowmjKn+2eSY++eSwrhe3g+LP6+r37JIG03q EM5/O3rNrHBOjfuRikVQHsrDhbetA8dBtP3rA=
Received: by 10.52.175.7 with SMTP id bw7mr500604vdc.32.1308191677094; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yangwooko@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.168.130 with HTTP; Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <508191451.13016@cnnic.cn>
References: <508191451.13016@cnnic.cn>
From: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:34:17 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rbWYe6tSW5Duin30swIk6AYrDUA
Message-ID: <BANLkTimcOzgMCDjkQQJuwKt3EsDyChtexQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: YAO Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:34:38 -0000

I am also fine with =E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E5=9F=9F .

To Yao,

Don't we have a simplified version of =E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E5=9F=9F ?

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, YAO Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn> wrote:
> pls see the attached pic.
>
>
> In your mail:
>>From: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
>>Reply-To:
>>To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
>>Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
>>Date:Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:05:45 +0900
>>
>>We, Koreans, use Chinese derived words very heavily though usually
>>written in Hagul rather than Chinese characters. As one of those
>>Koreans, given translation is not acceptable at all. Better
>>translation is
>
>
>



--=20
a human known as yangwooko@gmail.com @ gtalk

From dburk@burkov.aha.ru  Thu Jun 16 00:02:48 2011
Return-Path: <dburk@burkov.aha.ru>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DC411E808C for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:02:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.823
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.823 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxKL5BrwUF4W for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aha.ru (backend13.aha.ru [62.113.86.202]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A71A11E8078 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [91.76.215.197] (account dburk@burkov.aha.ru HELO [192.168.1.4]) by backend13.aha.ru (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.11) with ESMTPSA id 195371065; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:02:45 +0400
References: <4DF91CE0.4030607@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <4DF91CE0.4030607@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8G4)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Message-Id: <75E3506E-E82A-47D0-952F-11870E9242D5@burkov.aha.ru>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8G4)
From: Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:03:36 +0400
To: "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: ietf-eai <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:02:48 -0000

Sent from my iPad

On 16.06.2011, at 0:58, Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> Hello.
>=20
> Please forgive my imposing an off-topic question to the list.  Since it pe=
rtains to internationalized domain names, I'm hoping you can help.
>=20
> I work with a new, open systems group that is contributing to the developm=
ent and use of DKIM and related trust technologies:
>=20
>   <http://www.trusteddomain.org/>
>=20
> We would like to assist efforts that confirm the use of internationalized d=
omain names with DKIM and want to create some domain names for use in the te=
sting. We'd like to register a few domain names that are variants of trusted=
domain.org.
>=20
> Unfortunately, none of us is fluent in languages that would be helpful for=
 the testing.  So I used Google Translate to guess at some possible domain n=
ames.
>=20
> These are the strings that it offered, as interpretations of "trusted doma=
in":
>=20
>   chinese - =E5=8F=97=E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E7=9A=84=E5=9F=9F
>=20
>   japanese - =E3=83=89=E3=83=A1=E3=82=A4=E3=83=B3=E3=82=92=E4=BF=A1=E9=A0=BC=

>=20
>   swedish - betrodda dom=C3=A4nen?

for Russian it will provide correct current using variant

=D0=B4=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=B5=D1=80=D0=B5=D0=BD=D0=BD=D1=8B=D0=B9=D0=B4=D0=BE=D0=BC=
=D0=B5=D0=BD

Dmitry
>=20
> My question is whether Google Translate produced translations that are cor=
rect for our use.  If these have problems, what strings should we use?
>=20
> Thanks!
>=20
> d/
>=20
> --=20
>=20
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

From duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp  Thu Jun 16 00:43:49 2011
Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B693211E80C0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.79
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UE3ldLOvN1Yp for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.20.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1525A11E80B8 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:43:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.20.226]) by acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p5G7het9020708 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:43:41 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 277e_0354_5a7b9b64_97ec_11e0_a739_001d096c5b62; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:43:40 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:40345) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S151D54D> for <ima@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:43:39 +0900
Message-ID: <4DF9B419.10509@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:43:21 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
References: <508191451.13016@cnnic.cn> <BANLkTimcOzgMCDjkQQJuwKt3EsDyChtexQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimcOzgMCDjkQQJuwKt3EsDyChtexQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:43:49 -0000

Hello Yangwoo,

Are you saying this for (Sino-)Korean or for Chinese itself?

 From Japanese, I know that often, the very same combination of Han 
characters (Hanzi/Hanja/Kanji) can be used both in Japanese and in 
Chinese for the same meaning, but in many other cases, it doesn't work 
so directly, and sometimes, it's very confusing or even dangerous. The 
most famous example is that 手紙 means letter in Japanese but toilet 
paper in Chinese :-(.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2011/06/16 11:34, Yangwoo Ko wrote:
> I am also fine with 信任域 .
>
> To Yao,
>
> Don't we have a simplified version of 信任域 ?
>
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, YAO Jiankang<yaojk@cnnic.cn>  wrote:
>> pls see the attached pic.
>>
>>
>> In your mail:
>>> From: Yangwoo Ko<newcat@icu.ac.kr>
>>> Reply-To:
>>> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
>>> Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
>>> Date:Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:05:45 +0900
>>>
>>> We, Koreans, use Chinese derived words very heavily though usually
>>> written in Hagul rather than Chinese characters. As one of those
>>> Koreans, given translation is not acceptable at all. Better
>>> translation is
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

From yangwooko@gmail.com  Thu Jun 16 00:59:48 2011
Return-Path: <yangwooko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4EC421F85EC for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.827
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.850,  BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQIPfgqy42dl for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AACF421F85EB for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so1245437vws.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1tSCfV6uuK3eiMN9ltOpndiwv2xa/XzKoGZ2wq6sZFU=; b=v7M5bQ4Urm/HSMQhNXz7Cm42vmzHblICttFkuBp6huphiJfG1+S63OieqFFEzc0k1a zC4VLHefJ75JgJJn6ysEzEQrRXMpaMYV3zaW3H8TrhxdY6tu9V23aJ1H98DuJTJ8wRb4 7fPAKwFkdCCOFrsc+baoLfBNgGsMXBBmNTO6A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=aW11Uqcn9zh81ztvNBSk++G2nLb6ANwwzzr09u1ME15HYcAPH2W2jNfFRtGHW7xzj/ qtYH6g46FgxmvGgXLOMJq2Mb2C17JykudlSXBwc2OWhM/BGIYPRYy3Xe4Ytu6Nui6VvU QnZPrJdXcynSLKFAeFkPD7o4KNOXr2g9AnvyM=
Received: by 10.52.181.98 with SMTP id dv2mr803809vdc.33.1308211187054; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:59:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yangwooko@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.182.67 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:59:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DF9B419.10509@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
References: <508191451.13016@cnnic.cn> <BANLkTimcOzgMCDjkQQJuwKt3EsDyChtexQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DF9B419.10509@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
From: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:59:26 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 6ZZLn1myGD0odxP3x1brXQNtvJo
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=YHGymaR=DOu0-BTmLtFmhP43PCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=C3=BCrst?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:59:48 -0000

For Koreans only. Though I guess that =E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E5=9F=9F is accept=
able (or at least
recognizable) for Chinese and Japanese as well as Korean.

Just for your fun, in Japanese according to my dictionary, letter can
be written either as =E6=89=8B=E7=B4=99 or as =E6=9B=B8=E7=B0=A1. The forme=
r is totally meaningless to
Korean unlike Chinese. The latter is understood as letter but is
seldomly used these days.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:43 PM, "Martin J. D=C3=BCrst"
<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Yangwoo,
>
> Are you saying this for (Sino-)Korean or for Chinese itself?
>
> From Japanese, I know that often, the very same combination of Han
> characters (Hanzi/Hanja/Kanji) can be used both in Japanese and in Chines=
e
> for the same meaning, but in many other cases, it doesn't work so directl=
y,
> and sometimes, it's very confusing or even dangerous. The most famous
> example is that =E6=89=8B=E7=B4=99 means letter in Japanese but toilet pa=
per in Chinese :-(.
>
> Regards, =C2=A0 Martin.
>
> On 2011/06/16 11:34, Yangwoo Ko wrote:
>>
>> I am also fine with =E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E5=9F=9F .
>>
>> To Yao,
>>
>> Don't we have a simplified version of =E4=BF=A1=E4=BB=BB=E5=9F=9F ?
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, YAO Jiankang<yaojk@cnnic.cn> =C2=A0wro=
te:
>>>
>>> pls see the attached pic.
>>>
>>>
>>> In your mail:
>>>>
>>>> From: Yangwoo Ko<newcat@icu.ac.kr>
>>>> Reply-To:
>>>> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
>>>> Date:Thu, 16 Jun 2011 10:05:45 +0900
>>>>
>>>> We, Koreans, use Chinese derived words very heavily though usually
>>>> written in Hagul rather than Chinese characters. As one of those
>>>> Koreans, given translation is not acceptable at all. Better
>>>> translation is
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>



--=20
a human known as yangwooko@gmail.com @ gtalk

From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Thu Jun 16 07:35:35 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C08411E813B for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.449
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qqCtwRmT5UCQ for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319D511E818E for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (adsl-67-127-56-68.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.56.68]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5GEZ33L028072 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:35:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4DFA1499.8090103@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:35:05 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?rst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, YAO Jiankang <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, Dmitry Burkov <dburk@burkov.aha.ru>
References: <508191451.13016@cnnic.cn> <BANLkTimcOzgMCDjkQQJuwKt3EsDyChtexQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DF9B419.10509@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BANLkTi=YHGymaR=DOu0-BTmLtFmhP43PCA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=YHGymaR=DOu0-BTmLtFmhP43PCA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] translations of "trusted domain" for IDN testing
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:35:35 -0000

Folks,

MANY thanks for the multiple responses.  They were all extremely helpful.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From jyee@afilias.info  Thu Jun 16 08:27:07 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 095A211E80AA for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:27:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IyQgrUTakRxy for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:27:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E36611E80A9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:27:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms6.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.112] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QXETJ-00041r-7U for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:27:05 +0000
Received: from mail-vw0-f50.google.com ([209.85.212.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QXETJ-0006u4-6p for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:27:05 +0000
Received: by vws14 with SMTP id 14so1300521vws.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.174.49 with SMTP id bp17mr1450953vdc.243.1308238023594; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.203.137.183] ([209.226.201.250]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o17sm254198vca.9.2011.06.16.08.27.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 08:27:02 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:26:59 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EFD6E946-B987-4031-953F-E01FC3225AEE@afilias.info>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: [EAI] (Re:  Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 15:27:07 -0000

The current revision (-10) has adopted a new ABNF model and so far the =
discussion/review is close to none.  I would like to ask everyone in WG =
to review, and provide feedbacks. =20

Simply saying "read and support" (did I hear that somewhere?) is not =
enough. There are discussions on several fields like forward path and =
others,  I would like to ask all to review, and write their thoughts on =
current ABNF.

(See conversations: "The scenario favoring 'uMailbox' and Trace fiedls)

Best
Joseph


On 2011-06-14, at 3:42 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:

>=20
>> On 6/13/2011 1:22 PM, Joseph Yee wrote:
>>> As co-chair, I ruled this topic closed and need no further =
discussion, unless new issues provided.
>=20
>> Excellent.  Thanks!
>=20
> Is there a list of outstanding things that might be preventing the =
docs from being submitted?  I'm not sure I know where we're at.
>=20
> Thanks,
> Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


From yangwooko@gmail.com  Mon Jun 20 00:40:00 2011
Return-Path: <yangwooko@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FDA11E80A9 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.26
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.283,  BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZjKLZa2LlG3t for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E830511E8077 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vxi40 with SMTP id 40so585955vxi.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=OX4tndSo2m/jlTiiyo7RAg78V+FHQfXlVoXWFS9cJ6s=; b=kGjC3XIj0gCr5Rl8fgTpirurlt49meBQ7eJ1IrUALI0VobFag5aKYplscG/JR7vPUZ DK5WtJrTp8qgesI3T9WE0E2o0Sv+B9fKhvaJlfBDD9B+shZLuh77OMyINJtRfdmH/qVR CwHhgWKoOjOcQ5uQqTIbzS6RpFVxbyr+GMvtA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=wArhm1VIN78CkbMD2TchlWjJ9aR0URJT6+alq97zSuriSnx9jfSn6q/gnhATq7w9w4 DJwtFug4UMFBh8KxqFCdbV22oRbAYo9e36Z9+W/eqQHLGGO75d3qXgTtFQ3QSzllZE10 BxVl2KWn2B37InFLO9ksRdgXCb77Iax8KlHqU=
Received: by 10.52.114.104 with SMTP id jf8mr6751117vdb.193.1308555599041; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: yangwooko@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.182.67 with HTTP; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <EFD6E946-B987-4031-953F-E01FC3225AEE@afilias.info>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <EFD6E946-B987-4031-953F-E01FC3225AEE@afilias.info>
From: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:39:39 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: UtntLEkIWFREAmpslTpdmcGaibU
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=jJaiqL=QvpNCY8ChFjHJ8OP=CGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:40:00 -0000

I have read current version and am quite satisfied with it.

As far as ABNF issue (and update or extend issue) is concerned, it
accomodates suggested modifications well.

Regarding trace fields issue, the approach included in the current
version is sort of a compromize among (backward?)
deliverability/cleanness/readability/... I have not found any profound
new issue that requires us to reopen this issue though I prefer a
different approach.

For "favoring uMailbox" issue, I think that it is useful to mention
how an implementation should handle such a case. However, I don't
think that part is particularly necessary for this document to be
wrapped up. So, I'd rather suggest to put aside such materials into a
separate I-D.

Very very minor editorial issues;

At section 3.2, "If and only if the EAI-aware SMTP client (sender) is
a Message Submission Agent ("MSA") [RFC4409] [RFC5598], MSA may choose
its"

--> ..., it may choose its

A few lines below, "But the detailed specification of this process and
its results is outside the"

--> its results are outside...

At section 3.3, "This document will make <Mailbox> to support
non-ASCII characters."

--> ... support non-ASCII characters as well.

All occurreces of "importted" should be relaced with "imported".

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info> wrote:
>
>
> The current revision (-10) has adopted a new ABNF model and so far the di=
scussion/review is close to none. =C2=A0I would like to ask everyone in WG =
to review, and provide feedbacks.
>
> Simply saying "read and support" (did I hear that somewhere?) is not enou=
gh. There are discussions on several fields like forward path and others, =
=C2=A0I would like to ask all to review, and write their thoughts on curren=
t ABNF.
>
> (See conversations: "The scenario favoring 'uMailbox' and Trace fiedls)
>
> Best
> Joseph
>
>
> On 2011-06-14, at 3:42 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:
>
>>
>>> On 6/13/2011 1:22 PM, Joseph Yee wrote:
>>>> As co-chair, I ruled this topic closed and need no further discussion,=
 unless new issues provided.
>>
>>> Excellent. =C2=A0Thanks!
>>
>> Is there a list of outstanding things that might be preventing the docs =
from being submitted? =C2=A0I'm not sure I know where we're at.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shawn
>> _______________________________________________
>> IMA mailing list
>> IMA@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>



--=20
a human known as yangwooko@gmail.com @ gtalk

From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Mon Jun 20 08:42:31 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518B99E802F for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lgRto0crGK7D for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1B09E801A for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.154) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:42:30 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.28]) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.154]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:42:29 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: Yangwoo Ko <newcat@icu.ac.kr>, Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
Thread-Index: AQHMLx1sDvU8p426eEq0FYpkaIjQg5TGYsSQ
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:42:29 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32232808@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <EFD6E946-B987-4031-953F-E01FC3225AEE@afilias.info> <BANLkTi=jJaiqL=QvpNCY8ChFjHJ8OP=CGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=jJaiqL=QvpNCY8ChFjHJ8OP=CGA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.19]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:42:31 -0000

DQo+PiBBdCBzZWN0aW9uIDMuMywgIlRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgd2lsbCBtYWtlIDxNYWlsYm94PiB0
byBzdXBwb3J0IG5vbi1BU0NJSSBjaGFyYWN0ZXJzLiINCg0KLS0+IC4uLiBzdXBwb3J0IG5vbi1B
U0NJSSBjaGFyYWN0ZXJzIGFzIHdlbGwuDQoNCiJUaGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHdpbGwgYWxsb3cgPE1h
aWxib3g+IHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgbm9uLUFTQ0lJIGNoYXJhY3RlcnMuIg0KDQotU2hhd24NCg==

From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Mon Jun 20 11:32:00 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7265311E81D8 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i9FZPITFDJLU for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F1311E81D3 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.42.219] (mab0536d0.tmodns.net [208.54.5.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5KIVl9e024216 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:31:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4DFF9200.6060600@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:31:28 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>	<EFD6E946-B987-4031-953F-E01FC3225AEE@afilias.info>	<BANLkTi=jJaiqL=QvpNCY8ChFjHJ8OP=CGA@mail.gmail.com> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32232808@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32232808@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:31:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:32:00 -0000

On 6/20/2011 8:42 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:
>
>>> At section 3.3, "This document will make<Mailbox>  to support non-ASCII characters."
>
> -->  ... support non-ASCII characters as well.
>
> "This document will allow<Mailbox>  to support non-ASCII characters."

The change /extends/ the set of characters.  That is, it is adding characters 
rather than defining the entire set.  (The "as well" implied "in addition" 
whereas Shawn's language might leave the point ambiguous.)

So perhaps the language should say that explicitly, along the lines of:

    This document extends <Mailbox> to add support of non-ASCII characters.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Tue Jun 21 14:47:26 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140B311E815D for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RMCIz44ofXFN for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:47:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADDD11E812E for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:47:17 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.5.194]) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.178]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:47:17 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10 
Thread-Index: AcwwXNBitxwGvo8VRVaI4GXwraYJjA==
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:47:17 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32269393@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.73]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 21:47:26 -0000

I'm fine with that=20

-Shawn


On 6/20/2011 8:42 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:
>
>>> At section 3.3, "This document will make<Mailbox>  to support non-ASCII=
 characters."
>
> -->  ... support non-ASCII characters as well.
>
> "This document will allow<Mailbox>  to support non-ASCII characters."

The change /extends/ the set of characters.  That is, it is adding characte=
rs=20
rather than defining the entire set.  (The "as well" implied "in addition"=
=20
whereas Shawn's language might leave the point ambiguous.)

So perhaps the language should say that explicitly, along the lines of:

    This document extends <Mailbox> to add support of non-ASCII characters.

d/
--=20

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


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

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


End of IMA Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10
***********************************


From healthyao@gmail.com  Fri Jun 24 01:49:16 2011
Return-Path: <healthyao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB4411E8087 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:49:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.846
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FTTJ08Fp3VIV for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71B111E8070 for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so3084454iye.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:49:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:references:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=ackhiHSbKOvnL3rs9j/RxSThPkSHLk2Fa8P6ZcH5rcM=; b=Mcm5ckdsjDV2+mnqOPl8e8zUVfB+cwwfGueqfz21YhaOu7LXC54LGwRtgkQGKdApPr wjRW2QOojfIcuSgb8N3vwD3xsCeI4Gw6fC8L1SgAg8hCYx5U88HnMP8/Fn7Hi5Vtk5Ik BXHjF2kq0MllAjxpyLDgy/7/hCDbK6y3EakzI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=QE7/mVZuTDhKeyADLtwVRpdYUQIaV/V5rZpeWqedxJnYWjZy2TRYHq9OBDuuirRjfa 8+U7Rn/e5NVUQfsu0FJ4SLXp59lGuWBoDcZJLIB23wXrglY08sVNWhA23XmcljvGmZ0G Loja3k0vd78DfnO0zDs96tt1vmySMoftW0tq4=
Received: by 10.42.177.138 with SMTP id bi10mr2888397icb.212.1308905354512; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LENOVO47E041CF ([218.241.103.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hw7sm2434595icc.3.2011.06.24.01.49.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <10F1A70129F0400087C7EFEACCC5A894@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
To: <ima@ietf.org>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <508238034.96632@cnnic.cn>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:49:11 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re:  Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:49:16 -0000

DQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIkpvc2VwaCBZZWUiIDxqeWVl
QGFmaWxpYXMuaW5mbz4NClRvOiAiU2hhd24gU3RlZWxlIiA8U2hhd24uU3RlZWxlQG1pY3Jvc29m
dC5jb20+DQpDYzogPGltYUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NClNlbnQ6IFRodXJzZGF5LCBKdW5lIDE2LCAyMDEx
IDExOjI2IFBNDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbRUFJXSAoUmU6IElzc3Vlcykgb24gY3VycmVudCBSRkM1MzM2
YmlzLTEwDQoNCg0KPiBUaGUgY3VycmVudCByZXZpc2lvbiAoLTEwKSBoYXMgYWRvcHRlZCBhIG5l
dyBBQk5GIG1vZGVsIGFuZCBzbyBmYXIgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24vcmV2aWV3IGlzIGNsb3NlIHRv
IG5vbmUuICBJIHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gYXNrIGV2ZXJ5b25lIGluIFdHIHRvIHJldmlldywgYW5k
IHByb3ZpZGUgZmVlZGJhY2tzLiAgDQo+IA0KPiBTaW1wbHkgc2F5aW5nICJyZWFkIGFuZCBzdXBw
b3J0IiAoZGlkIEkgaGVhciB0aGF0IHNvbWV3aGVyZT8pIGlzIG5vdCBlbm91Z2guIFRoZXJlIGFy
ZSBkaXNjdXNzaW9ucyBvbiBzZXZlcmFsIGZpZWxkcyBsaWtlIGZvcndhcmQgcGF0aCBhbmQgb3Ro
ZXJzLCAgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIGFzayBhbGwgdG8gcmV2aWV3LCBhbmQgd3JpdGUgdGhlaXIg
dGhvdWdodHMgb24gY3VycmVudCBBQk5GLg0KPiANCj4NCg0KSSBwbGFuIHRvIHN1Ym1pdCB0aGUg
bmV3IHZlcnNpb24gb24gMjkgSnVuZS4NCg0KSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgYW55IG1vcmUgY29tbWVudHMs
IHBscyBsZXQgbWUga25vdyBiZWZvcmUgMjkgSnVuZS4NCg0KSSBob3BlIHRoYXQgd2UgY2FuIGFu
bm91bmNlIHRoYXQgdGhlIGNvcmUgZG9jdW1lbnRzIGFyZSByZWFkeSB0byBnbyB0byBJRVNHIGR1
cmluZyB0aGUgbmV4dCBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmcuDQoNCklzIHRoaXMgYWltIHJlYXNvbmFibGU/DQoN
Cg0KSmlhbmthbmcgWWFvDQoNCg0KPiAoU2VlIGNvbnZlcnNhdGlvbnM6ICJUaGUgc2NlbmFyaW8g
ZmF2b3JpbmcgJ3VNYWlsYm94JyBhbmQgVHJhY2UgZmllZGxzKQ0KPiANCj4gQmVzdA0KPiBKb3Nl
cGgNCj4gDQo+IA0K


From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Fri Jun 24 13:43:10 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0319011E8184 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:43:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ifRMXRHppRR3 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7892A11E810C for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:43:02 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.5.194]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:43:02 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: (Re:  Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10 
Thread-Index: Acwyr0DHur7CnsW3SbiE055WzlQc5w==
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:43:01 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A3227FFAF@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.79]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re:  Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 20:43:10 -0000

I'm fine with that.  I have no more comments.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Yee" <jyee@afilias.info>
To: "Shawn Steele" <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Cc: <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:26 PM
Subject: [EAI] (Re: Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10


> The current revision (-10) has adopted a new ABNF model and so far the di=
scussion/review is close to none.  I would like to ask everyone in WG to re=
view, and provide feedbacks. =20
>=20
> Simply saying "read and support" (did I hear that somewhere?) is not enou=
gh. There are discussions on several fields like forward path and others,  =
I would like to ask all to review, and write their thoughts on current ABNF=
.
>=20
>

I plan to submit the new version on 29 June.

If you have any more comments, pls let me know before 29 June.

I hope that we can announce that the core documents are ready to go to IESG=
 during the next IETF meeting.

Is this aim reasonable?


Jiankang Yao


> (See conversations: "The scenario favoring 'uMailbox' and Trace fiedls)
>=20
> Best
> Joseph
>=20
>=20


From klensin@jck.com  Sat Jun 25 12:27:18 2011
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DB211E80EE for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:27:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.705
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.106, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XrzBZQmEAsG5 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3373611E80CB for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QaYVf-0006nu-Sn; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:16 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:15 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Jiankang Yao <healthyao@gmail.com>, ima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <A5B037475EA0E7797D4956EA@JCK-EEE10>
In-Reply-To: <10F1A70129F0400087C7EFEACCC5A894@LENOVO47E041CF>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A1D81C79A@TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <508238034.96632@cnnic.cn> <10F1A70129F0400087C7EFEACCC5A894@LENOVO47E041CF>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [EAI] (Re:  Issues) on current RFC5336bis-10
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:27:18 -0000

<co-chair hat on>

--On Friday, 24 June, 2011 16:49 +0800 Jiankang Yao
<healthyao@gmail.com> wrote:

>...
> I plan to submit the new version on 29 June.

I assume this will include the improvement about extending
<Mailbox> syntax suggested by Yangwoo and tuned by Shawn and
Dave as well as Yangwoo's other suggestions.

If others have comments, now is the time to speak up.

> If you have any more comments, pls let me know before 29 June.
> 
> I hope that we can announce that the core documents are ready
> to go to IESG during the next IETF meeting.

I assume that Joseph will issue a WG Last Call on this document
immediately after it is posted.  For those who are anxious to
get finished (a category that I hope includes everyone on the
list), it would be much better to get fixes into that 29 June
draft than to complain during WG Last Call.  The latter would
almost certainly result in delays in moving to IETF Last Call.

> Is this aim reasonable?

I hope so.

</co-chair hat off>

    john





From klensin@jck.com  Sat Jun 25 12:54:41 2011
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51D5711E80D0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.703
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIvFTZ+IVCLs for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42DD511E809A for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:54:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QaYwB-00079f-1I for ima@ietf.org; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:54:39 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:54:38 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 19:54:41 -0000

Hi.
Personal opinion only...

My experience in trying to track missing or broken email
messages across multiple environments leads me to believe that
information in trace fields should be confined to the more
universal forms possible and that they should not rely on any
sort of extended, advanced, or enhanced features if that can
possibly be avoided.  

I recognize, and agree with, the view that, if we were designing
a new mail system today, we would want to accept characters
drawn from a large subset of Unicode anywhere that a "character"
could occur.  But I also recognize that, while some communities
will probably adopt EAI very quickly, we are likely facing a
long transition before the whole Internet catches up.  

I have also experienced messages being forwarded, extracts
getting made and copied into others, and so on, often in ways
that have little or nothing to so with any standards we might
produce.  As just one example, the guidance from many mail about
the first step to be taken when a message appears to be
unreadable or damaged is to expose all of the headers of that
message and then copy and paste them into a new message to be
sent off for diagnosis.  Unfortunately, most of us who have
worked in internationalization know that copy and paste
operations of non-ASCII text are not particularly reliable,
especially when the text originated outside the system on which
the operation is being performed. 

There is no question that prohibiting non-ASCII text it trace
fields will lose information.  It is likely that forcing domain
names in such fields into A-label form will be inconvenient in
many cases.  But it is almost equally certain that being
permissive about use of non-ASCII text will prevent debugging in
some situations or at least make it vastly more difficult.

The WG made a different decision in 5336 than is now proposed
for 5336bis.  Circumstances were different.  Even if they were
not, nothing says that the WG was right then and is therefore
wrong now.  But the opposite doesn't apply either: it is not
automatically true that the change is an improvement.

The tradeoff is complicated.  If the WG makes an informed
decision that the current text in 5336bis is what is wanted and
strikes the best balance between maximum information and minimum
risk of ending up with unusable data at a critical time, I have
no problem going along with that decision.  But I would
encourage everyone to think carefully about this an reach a
conclusion about the tradeoff you want, not to assume that
others have magically gotten it right or that a slogan about,
e.g., "UTF-8 everywhere" is an adequate way to make the decision.

       john


From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Sat Jun 25 14:44:12 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA7E11E811F for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L0fb9sX30qJt for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603E211E811A for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (ppp-68-120-198-5.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5PLi5ar007297 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:44:10 -0700
Message-ID: <4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:43:56 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10>
In-Reply-To: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 14:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:44:12 -0000

On 6/25/2011 12:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> Hi.
> Personal opinion only...
>
> My experience in trying to track missing or broken email
> messages across multiple environments leads me to believe that
> information in trace fields should be confined to the more
> universal forms possible and that they should not rely on any
> sort of extended, advanced, or enhanced features if that can
> possibly be avoided.
>
> I recognize, and agree with, the view that, if we were designing
> a new mail system today, we would want to accept characters
> drawn from a large subset of Unicode anywhere that a "character"
> could occur.  But I also recognize that, while some communities
> will probably adopt EAI very quickly, we are likely facing a
> long transition before the whole Internet catches up.

You appear to be continuing with the working group's old model, rather than 
applying the new model.  The old model worried about hybrid environments, where 
some places support Unicode and some do not.

To repeat what has now been repeated many times:

      The new model that was adopted months ago is of a Unicode-pure environment.

      There will, indeed, need to be gateways between the ASCII-only legacy 
world and the new, Unicode-pure world, but the work to deal with that has been 
explicitly moved outside of the current two documents.

So while your estimate of the future is no doubt correct, it is not relevant to 
the current two documents.  The current two documents start from the assertion 
that Unicode is supported.


> I have also experienced messages being forwarded, extracts
> getting made and copied into others, and so on, often in ways
> that have little or nothing to so with any standards we might
> produce.

This is, of course, true.  But it is true for many scenarios, not just for 
scenarios involving the trace fields.  Hence this is a more general issue and 
does not warrant specialized handling for trace fields.



> There is no question that prohibiting non-ASCII text it trace
> fields will lose information.

Correct.  And that's why it is a mistake to impose restrictions, for an 
environment that has already been declared to be Unicode-pure.



> The tradeoff is complicated.

Indeed it is... for the hybrid model.  The working group tried to deal with that 
complexity.  The decision some months ago was, instead, to make things simple. 
The only challenge now is to make sure that things are /kept/ simple.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From healthyao@gmail.com  Sat Jun 25 15:24:35 2011
Return-Path: <healthyao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2028211E8125 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KkvyjnwSzouH for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D29811E8123 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so4531466iwn.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:references:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=CeLisOXiMsWuRcFRI3KxZpRJfpUtuC4AkM+JPbd4LBY=; b=teBA3jgjvTX/fuWcCadCYyp9r3rD42tMpmyupcAKI0Eug/RCCyjixyoGqYksxApHN0 37vjk8KFZVaxkveXrh88/mJQIEEky5pfJez8rm1CO9h6F9HZh9JVRvW5OLPHKjsZEBwo PTnE8nWvWPcErbgveg/xivrw4Em5EndmWbuVs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=FxybKAPOtK2pF7lopoeuxM6QxwQoCFLM0Kq20Izj2WWVlxYl8PcPL2YxdpLY+9jKJH N1cLxT6EE5NyXIOUuvjJKRza0PdjgeL5rcaG8B9hF8ppqv94LOzJGj70FS+pTzer2rDZ xmNsnktGruMil9ESw9VPFonnqgKE7J+anBkgc=
Received: by 10.42.151.72 with SMTP id d8mr2900207icw.26.1309040673164; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from YaoJK ([123.115.193.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a9sm3886541icy.18.2011.06.25.15.24.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <002401cc3386$a7d01d10$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
From: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
To: <ima@ietf.org>
References: <509031687.32037@cnnic.cn>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:24:27 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:24:35 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
To: <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 3:54 AM
Subject: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields


> Hi.
> Personal opinion only...
...
>
> The tradeoff is complicated.  If the WG makes an informed
> decision that the current text in 5336bis is what is wanted and
> strikes the best balance between maximum information and minimum
> risk of ending up with unusable data at a critical time, I have
> no problem going along with that decision.  But I would
> encourage everyone to think carefully about this an reach a
> conclusion about the tradeoff you want, not to assume that
> others have magically gotten it right or that a slogan about,
> e.g., "UTF-8 everywhere" is an adequate way to make the decision.
>


the current text in rfc5336bis is "   Except in the 'For' clause and 
'Reverse-path' clause where
   internationalized domain name with the U-label form MAY be used,
   internationalized domain names in Received fields MUST be transmitted
   in the form of A-labels. "

I think that the current wording is such a tradeoff between easy debugging 
and clear UTF-8 environment.


Jiankang Yao

>
>       john
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
> 


From healthyao@gmail.com  Sat Jun 25 15:27:14 2011
Return-Path: <healthyao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0802322800F for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0WYqHMEWdIN8 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D39F22800D for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so4531794iye.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=C2ls5GDo2GL3Yh/kZZ5fHbT7ROm+lEWoXvNi8RHUdes=; b=A0Gu2tHs+/lVz0w6qqiZQukBgmSCOd2dQR6Pt0LhogVpG2T/cI+Tm7JTPq1zHEewCt 59ico5EcL36m53aSX4YaQm2wrxB0t5aqCmZv5BMzY/FD2lcwJvCtTtc6dJomRa8I7u0F zsVioTeO2zhK5lBPubOvNIOIzvDQw24I0Kbbg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=X+Wk4xjWsipK43X8UQ5z005MH6mBig02f8Bbds+D43P9ENTH8SqlMBSc7V3xIEnmZf nwAgqZOY+kLjYROJOOFWn08MQS+XDvkviBaoVaaxO/G5fDU4jiW0OO5jgIMIDNI/wg4G QOCbt0P08tIfsGeGA0/m/4UuGWXNrM1aVXNvs=
Received: by 10.42.173.9 with SMTP id p9mr5051311icz.268.1309040831862; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from YaoJK ([123.115.193.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j7sm60741icq.2.2011.06.25.15.27.08 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <002b01cc3387$067b7ee0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
From: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <509038263.54166@cnnic.cn>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 06:27:06 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:27:14 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
Cc: <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields


>
>
...
>
> Indeed it is... for the hybrid model.  The working group tried to deal
> with that complexity.  The decision some months ago was, instead, to make
> things simple. The only challenge now is to make sure that things are
> /kept/ simple.
>

Does it mean that the current wording in RFC5336bis about this issue is ok
for you?

Jiankang Yao

> d/
> -- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>


From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Sat Jun 25 15:45:59 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E08A11E80CC for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Rb7ii5djQId for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A290111E808F for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (ppp-68-120-198-5.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5PMjoWG008476 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:55 -0700
Message-ID: <4E066515.9050004@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:41 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jiankang Yao <healthyao@gmail.com>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <509038263.54166@cnnic.cn> <002b01cc3387$067b7ee0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
In-Reply-To: <002b01cc3387$067b7ee0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:45:59 -0000

On 6/25/2011 3:27 PM, Jiankang Yao wrote:
>> Indeed it is... for the hybrid model. The working group tried to deal
>> with that complexity. The decision some months ago was, instead, to make
>> things simple. The only challenge now is to make sure that things are
>> /kept/ simple.
>
> Does it mean that the current wording in RFC5336bis about this issue is ok
> for you?


If the current wording is the text that you copied to the list, a few minutes ago:

> the current text in rfc5336bis is "   Except in the 'For' clause and 'Reverse-path' clause where
>   internationalized domain name with the U-label form MAY be used,
>   internationalized domain names in Received fields MUST be transmitted
>   in the form of A-labels. "

then a rule requiring use of ASCII-only encoding does NOT seem to be appropriate.

That sort of rule is appropriate to a hybrid environment, not a Unicode-pure 
environment.

   d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From healthyao@gmail.com  Sat Jun 25 16:02:03 2011
Return-Path: <healthyao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F5011E80CC for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001,  BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p9Lx9ftOceRO for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD5D11E808F for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye7 with SMTP id 7so4547708iye.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=sBHAd7sz9ulU1gHEeuYnzRlJfw5wpYPOmuQ7OtO4j8E=; b=P06stgEZ/agMOns0gqgO0DpAiYaMjYk2dhuhDYB7CZTGRDKIPROLMXg2UdKdy9hO90 g05X1wdvxA611jh3g9m6hTlnmrNynq1xNeZXlOMzQXro0v38rEupXnQsQ8Q1LAT3M31U N1kzxh0ZBpcZKLpbFRKVfex2bY/Fzm57EsdFw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=dWtxM81K9rM/hCZvLLyyuT+gUX0C95hncU13EhRskFNrkGLF3SAgE7H7PU4IzDC/rf d3SbxfnmXaTCRmkphtcQULTujc0ZlEb4hyIVdi/FkP9yskwprZmVG0jLdesJjDqtD8ub LHY9PyhLPX6+dFS3fxBevBn+C/p2dICFMwx2w=
Received: by 10.42.249.79 with SMTP id mj15mr5542231icb.224.1309042921843; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from YaoJK ([123.115.193.147]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hw7sm3913557icc.15.2011.06.25.16.01.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <005501cc338b$e429b0f0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
From: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <509038263.54166@cnnic.cn><002b01cc3387$067b7ee0$c901a8c0@YaoJK> <509041974.38791@cnnic.cn>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:01:56 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:02:03 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
To: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
Cc: <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields


>
>
> On 6/25/2011 3:27 PM, Jiankang Yao wrote:
>>> Indeed it is... for the hybrid model. The working group tried to deal
>>> with that complexity. The decision some months ago was, instead, to make
>>> things simple. The only challenge now is to make sure that things are
>>> /kept/ simple.
>>
>> Does it mean that the current wording in RFC5336bis about this issue is 
>> ok
>> for you?
>
>
> If the current wording is the text that you copied to the list, a few 
> minutes ago:
>
>> the current text in rfc5336bis is "   Except in the 'For' clause and 
>> 'Reverse-path' clause where
>>   internationalized domain name with the U-label form MAY be used,
>>   internationalized domain names in Received fields MUST be transmitted
>>   in the form of A-labels. "
>
> then a rule requiring use of ASCII-only encoding does NOT seem to be 
> appropriate.
>
> That sort of rule is appropriate to a hybrid environment, not a 
> Unicode-pure environment.
>

It seems that you favor the Unicode-pure for the trace field;

 John prefers ASCII-pure for it.

 the current wording is a tradeoff between easy debugging
and clear UTF-8 environment.

I prefer the current wording since it was discussed and decided in the WG 
many months ago.

If we need to update the current wording, it is better that one of the chair 
can call the rough consensus for this issue.


Jiankang Yao



>   d/
>
> -- 
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
> 


From dhc2@dcrocker.net  Sat Jun 25 16:10:46 2011
Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA2722800E for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o0sTjO3FH51v for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C0C228005 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.42] (ppp-68-120-198-5.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.120.198.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5PNAZMK008767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:10:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4E066AE2.3090104@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:10:26 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jiankang Yao <healthyao@gmail.com>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <509038263.54166@cnnic.cn><002b01cc3387$067b7ee0$c901a8c0@YaoJK> <509041974.38791@cnnic.cn> <005501cc338b$e429b0f0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
In-Reply-To: <005501cc338b$e429b0f0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:10:47 -0000

On 6/25/2011 4:01 PM, Jiankang Yao wrote:
> It seems that you favor the Unicode-pure for the trace field;

I believe that that is consistent with the current goals of the working group, yes.


> John prefers ASCII-pure for it.
>
> the current wording is a tradeoff between easy debugging
> and clear UTF-8 environment.

The only references to "debugging" that I recall concerned operation in a hybrid 
environment, with some places supporting Unicode and some places supporting 
ASCII-only.

However as I noted earlier today, support for hybrid environments was removed as 
a goal for the working group and it has greatly simplified all other portions of 
these two documents.

I do not understand the reason for saying that the more complicated hybrid model 
is needed here but not elsewhere.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Sat Jun 25 22:39:10 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0CE11E807C for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:39:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kYVkHjVF08ec for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F8211E8078 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.67) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:38:49 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.5.194]) by TK5EX14HUBC107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.67]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:38:48 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RFC5336bis and trace fields
Thread-Index: AQHMM8K7R74dLZnnJkKXt8xOwH3pLw==
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:38:48 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32287322@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.37]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:39:10 -0000
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From sm@resistor.net  Sun Jun 26 02:40:37 2011
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F04321F84C2 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.556
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.556 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TUoTpSr0rGVU for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A173121F84C3 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5.Beta0) with ESMTP id p5Q9eLe2029946;  Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1309081233; bh=5nOIMVVKNJViF2EsjHD8LoKK6h5bm7nucEHzTs4v5J8=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=GjQQjaG6bEposSJ5A4muBZvOHiWtA7jH8J0JyXz4xIj2iYaocSPVv/VD0nQY4AOVf o5hO06MSeCX6DADC8Q39C3gbEvMzhHjGxOJZqDqFPYcgZ0u2YBZyw8NmzAdrzjNzGf fo9jWTm+PbXTXtp1tmfvY7d0nMY+4PD900peYSSw=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1309081233; bh=5nOIMVVKNJViF2EsjHD8LoKK6h5bm7nucEHzTs4v5J8=; h=Message-Id:X-Mailer:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To: References:Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=x+Mo3w0KCFtBMhN6+fvkyXxqnQ/Zu2Tu+nMIS/Urz3hOB0gss326eJ6EMfhZksblN XgxIAez8vPaRAwkEtqaRpUlTm89NzD/ro53iE3JE3BnhLao2IN8iwmqznIroRBJPAl MXbWN1fUzHiSl6muegVQdQtmaLMEZCN0lfdKBovo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 02:40:08 -0700
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32287322@TK5EX14MBXC137.re dmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32287322@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:40:37 -0000

Hi Shawn,
At 22:38 25-06-2011, Shawn Steele wrote:
>labels.  I'd prefer that stuff be left in unaltered UTF-8.  I 
>realize that this has some risk of loss, but it modern systems it's 
>trivial to forward stuff as attachments or whatever for 
>debugging.  I'd prefer to err on the side of having new systems be 
>more tracable than a chance of having obsolete systems more 
>traceable at the expense of new systems.

As an anecdote, my experience is different.  The level of brokenness 
of modern systems is understated.  Adherence to standards is 
flaky.  It can be quite an effort to get mail headers for 
debugging.  Any loss of relevant information increases that effort.

Regards,
-sm



From johnl@iecc.com  Sun Jun 26 07:47:05 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7C99E8005 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:47:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.199
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O5ThY7PABhNU for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AB29E8004 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 48260 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2011 14:47:02 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 2011 14:47:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 85317 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2011 14:47:02 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 26 Jun 2011 14:47:02 -0000
Date: 26 Jun 2011 14:46:40 -0000
Message-ID: <20110626144640.11229.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:47:05 -0000

>As an anecdote, my experience is different.  The level of brokenness 
>of modern systems is understated.

Indeed, but this discussion is basically an attempt to guess in what
way broken mail systems will behave once they have ignored our "don't
do that" and relayed an EAI message to a non-EAI MTA.  I can imagine a
wide variety of things that might happen to a message: it might pass
through unscathed because the MTA happens to be 8-bit clean (what my
MTA does).  Or it might helpfully encode stuff as base64. Or it might
chop stuff down to 7 bits, Or it might guess that the 8-bit stuff is
ISO-8859-x or Windows-1252 and downcode it to nonsense.  Or it might
do something else.

I don't see any particular reason to expect any of these behaviors to
dominate the broken MTA market, so I'm reluctant to make any changes
intended to work around what we anticipate broken MTAs might do.  No
matter what we do, including doing nothing, it shouldn't be hard to
tell where the broken relay is.

R's,
John

From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com  Sun Jun 26 12:12:04 2011
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418131F0C42 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.999
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4SfnjGmDKmrZ for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0451F0C3B for <ima@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:12:02 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.5.194]) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.178]) with mapi id 14.01.0289.008; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:12:02 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Thread-Topic: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
Thread-Index: AQHMM8K7R74dLZnnJkKXt8xOwH3pL5TPYrIjgACfpHA=
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:12:01 +0000
Message-ID: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32287322@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3TK5EX14MBXC137r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ima@ietf.org" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:12:04 -0000

--_000_E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3TK5EX14MBXC137r_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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=

--_000_E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3TK5EX14MBXC137r_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_000_E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3TK5EX14MBXC137r_--

From ned+ima@mrochek.com  Sun Jun 26 12:35:03 2011
Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DBFE21F8427 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:35:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9jPTbpVJKMHr for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6569121F8422 for <ima@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 12:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O2XNR521NK00Z9Z6@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:51:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O2V4E7XQZK00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01O2XNR42P8K00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 09:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:46:40 +0000" <20110626144640.11229.qmail@joyce.lan>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net> <20110626144640.11229.qmail@joyce.lan>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1309106709; bh=2o7AWMfY3pgX8JyLTdKcYu0uhQC61QvSEdWpeMqi1qo=; h=From:Cc:Message-id:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=soZU3CqwGLcrJondtmk6xxNscbp1lOIFSUuCW82Z80Fi6+PMvuV3t2hwUWmUw6aWw +ZtDi9bUwjRUfmmFCMa53vUyQahugeNCgUkq6ma3Wz2tYWtwQXBjtJBPi3sCorU/Tp DJJzZk+yKVNPF2AaaRQEJ6/eDymEHZwX9Fo1MAmk=
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 19:35:03 -0000

> > As an anecdote, my experience is different.  The level of brokenness
> > of modern systems is understated.

> Indeed, but this discussion is basically an attempt to guess in what
> way broken mail systems will behave once they have ignored our "don't
> do that" and relayed an EAI message to a non-EAI MTA.  I can imagine a
> wide variety of things that might happen to a message: it might pass
> through unscathed because the MTA happens to be 8-bit clean (what my
> MTA does).  Or it might helpfully encode stuff as base64. Or it might
> chop stuff down to 7 bits, Or it might guess that the 8-bit stuff is
> ISO-8859-x or Windows-1252 and downcode it to nonsense.  Or it might
> do something else.

One of the more likely outcomes is that all uses of 8bit gets turned into
encoded-words with some guess being made as to the charset. The reason it's
common is it actually works pretty well as long as the 8bit wasn't used in
addresses, which prior to EAI you wouldn't expect it to be.

But with 8bit appearing in addresses ... a lot of the agents that turn stuff
into encoded words don't exactly have the world's best parsers, and will
probably end up converting EAI addresses into encoded-words.

> I don't see any particular reason to expect any of these behaviors to
> dominate the broken MTA market, so I'm reluctant to make any changes
> intended to work around what we anticipate broken MTAs might do.

We need to be very clear here: The "brokenness" occurred when some EAI system
improperly forwarded an EAI message to a non-EAI-capable MTA or other
component. Once that happens all bets are off - with only a few exceptions, our
standards generally don't specify what various components are supposed to do
when the receive what is from their perspective egregiously incompliant
material. So you can and should expect behaviors ranging from outright message
rejection (likely result with our MTA, for example) to various attempts to fix
the message, to the message silently disappearing. (This last is often the end
result of an initial bounce - the bounce itself bounces and that's that.)

> No
> matter what we do, including doing nothing, it shouldn't be hard to
> tell where the broken relay is.

Yes, in most cases tracking down the system that sent an EAI message to a
non-EAI system is fairly simple. Getting such things fixed is another matter
entirely, but unless someone has some truly novel approach to suggest I'm
not seeing anything we can do about it in our specifications.

				Ned

From jyee@afilias.info  Mon Jun 27 12:32:49 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0080311E8137 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7YQ8CCS8TiFR for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:32:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0770D11E811B for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms6.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.112] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QbHY6-0001mc-94 for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:32:46 +0000
Received: from mail-yi0-f50.google.com ([209.85.218.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QbHY6-0008WC-8V for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:32:46 +0000
Received: by yib19 with SMTP id 19so2114441yib.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.250.34 with SMTP id x34mr7228889agh.76.1309203166046; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x4sm4481362anp.17.2011.06.27.12.32.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:32:41 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <416EBB18-956A-4D2E-9572-1F9AF7B832ED@afilias.info>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32287322@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:32:49 -0000

Speaking as individual (and listening from everyone)...

One of my concern, besides relay, are programs that analyze trace =
information.  Some analyze on IP, some on domains, some on both and =
beyond.  And with current ASCII-only standard, these programs who =
concern on domain infos treat domains as is (A-label only).  If we =
allowed non-ASCII Unicode in trace fields, what is the impact?  My =
personal estimate is that we will break many of these programs at MUA =
and mail-store level initially, and it will hurt adoption and =
deployment.  And I would love to be convinced that the impact is =
minimal.

I agreed with Shawn that it is painful to human eye (especially end =
users) to see A-label in trace info, but I am curious how much end users =
care about the trace info (that is if they read from raw message source =
a lot), I assume it matters more to mail administrators and programs.

And I would like to ask everyone (still as individual, but start getting =
blurry):

Who cares of trace info? (human? at what role? program? at what level of =
mail transaction?)


It's not consensus question, but to keep discussing how the WG perceive =
trace info in different perspectives.

Best
Joseph

On 2011-06-26, at 3:12 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:

> And I think munging to a different form causes that kind of loss... =
Because it's not predictable :-D
>=20
> - shawn (=EF=A3=A2=EF=A3=90=EF=A3=A7=EF=A3=9B)
>=20
> Sent from my Windows Phone 7
> From: SM
> Sent: 6/26/2011 2:40 AM
> To: Shawn Steele
> Cc: ima@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
>=20
> Hi Shawn,
> At 22:38 25-06-2011, Shawn Steele wrote:
> >labels.  I'd prefer that stuff be left in unaltered UTF-8.  I=20
> >realize that this has some risk of loss, but it modern systems it's=20=

> >trivial to forward stuff as attachments or whatever for=20
> >debugging.  I'd prefer to err on the side of having new systems be=20
> >more tracable than a chance of having obsolete systems more=20
> >traceable at the expense of new systems.
>=20
> As an anecdote, my experience is different.  The level of brokenness=20=

> of modern systems is understated.  Adherence to standards is=20
> flaky.  It can be quite an effort to get mail headers for=20
> debugging.  Any loss of relevant information increases that effort.
>=20
> Regards,
> -sm
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


From ned+ima@mrochek.com  Mon Jun 27 15:01:03 2011
Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C6F21F86F0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.299
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XviLqT-z4mU0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD0D221F86EB for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O2ZCUAFVVK002ZYR@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:00:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O2V4E7XQZK00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01O2ZCU7941A00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:32:41 -0400" <416EBB18-956A-4D2E-9572-1F9AF7B832ED@afilias.info>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A32287322@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20110626022424.026d2870@resistor.net> <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A322897E3@TK5EX14MBXC137.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <416EBB18-956A-4D2E-9572-1F9AF7B832ED@afilias.info>
To: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1309211628; bh=hr1ASDRhL5IOiFke8hr+Ngz5q6PQpQusAgXH7FfPYcQ=; h=From:Cc:Message-id:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=s2jIQB6zeAs/u5E2HPga+xckuGKsvsmKPOjqhCx/llVyjq+lA+caXjY028aVPqzr+ ZvCwVbOtD8fN7C2M/HPuQJWcUuIG+mTNFBJhl0Pgb23qO2was8BCgTs/h+yo9hf5Uu XVaruKALrtL1wyNqDz9thkPoMi/TbFsIY6zErczo=
Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 22:01:03 -0000

> One of my concern, besides relay, are programs that analyze trace
> information.  Some analyze on IP, some on domains, some on both and beyond. 
> And with current ASCII-only standard, these programs who concern on domain
> infos treat domains as is (A-label only).  If we allowed non-ASCII Unicode in
> trace fields, what is the impact?

IMO the mistake here is in thinking we have any real control over this
happening. For better or worse, large numbers of email applications create
identifiers and fill in these sorts of fields with values derived from various
configuration settings that also control what ends up in various addressing
fields. It's simply not realistic to believe that all of the code out there
that does this will be changed to deal with those settings moving to utf-8 as
part of EAI.

So there are going to be leaks. Probably lots of them. Which means even if we
prohibit utf-8 in trace fields, it's going to end up in there anyway. In fact
there's nothing stopping 8bit material from ending up in trace fields already
(yes it's a standards violation but there's never any shortage of violators out
there), and since trace field analysis tends to be rather critical when it is
done, I rather suspect the tools in this space have at least learned to
tolerate 8bit rather than fall over.

The alternative, which I strongly prefer, is to say, "EAI trace can contain
utf-8 information and tools need to be updated accordingly. Deal with it."

Given that EAI causes utf-8 to appear in MAIL FROM and RCPT TO, this means that
there's already no choice but to upgrade the large number of tools that process
transaction logs to deal with it, I'm just not seeing this as being all that
difficult. In fact the work involved seems completely trivial compared to the
effort needed to add EAI support to, say, a message store.

> My personal estimate is that we will break many of these programs at MUA and
> mail-store level initially, and it will hurt adoption and deployment.  And I
> would love to be convinced that the impact is minimal.

I don't think the impact is minimal, but again, the mistake is in thinking that
a prohibition will fix the problem. And again, I don't think this is anywhere
close to being the biggest impediment to EAI deployment. In fact given what
store EAI support is starting to look like I seriously doubt it's of any real
significance at all.

> I agreed with Shawn that it is painful to human eye (especially end users) to
> see A-label in trace info, but I am curious how much end users care about the
> trace info (that is if they read from raw message source a lot), I assume it
> matters more to mail administrators and programs.

End users don't know and don't care.

> And I would like to ask everyone (still as individual, but start getting
> blurry):

> Who cares of trace info? (human? at what role? program? at what level of mail
> transaction?)

It's overwhelming consumed by people in my experience, but there are any
number of automatic processors.

But if you want to look at something specific, consider Sieve. Sieves that
piddle around in Received: fields are pretty common (in fact an entire Sieve
extension, index, primary purpose is looking at Received: fields). But not only
is Sieve natively utf-8, it automatically decodes encoded-words in Received:
fields to utf-8. So Sieves already have to deal with utf-8 in Received: fields.

> It's not consensus question, but to keep discussing how the WG perceive trace
> info in different perspectives.

				Ned

From johnl@iecc.com  Mon Jun 27 16:08:06 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49E1A11E80AC for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.9
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.300,  BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iB29B7Kh-Gsp for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05D711E808D for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 74676 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2011 23:08:03 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 27 Jun 2011 23:08:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 5574 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2011 23:08:03 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 27 Jun 2011 23:08:03 -0000
Date: 27 Jun 2011 23:07:41 -0000
Message-ID: <20110627230741.14981.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <01O2ZCU7941A00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 23:08:06 -0000

>there), and since trace field analysis tends to be rather critical when it is
>done, I rather suspect the tools in this space have at least learned to
>tolerate 8bit rather than fall over.

Having written a certain amount of it, I'd agree.  A little UTF-8 in
the headers is no more broken than a lot of stuff we have to deal with
already.

>The alternative, which I strongly prefer, is to say, "EAI trace can contain
>utf-8 information and tools need to be updated accordingly. Deal with it."

Right.

R's,
John

From healthyao@gmail.com  Mon Jun 27 19:10:18 2011
Return-Path: <healthyao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5206721F848D for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:10:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.846
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D-98PIhUIo9i for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7295621F8489 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so6598504iwn.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority :x-msmail-priority:x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=abBfTaQxk4LeMjPZi+V2dTgy1Pam6N4UaKcqYh2GFYs=; b=lsKNZq80vllaiRZjRPrlMMFdEfNE1nLQaE11BlOi5+zsJ/abvvACoHCDXGcf3QnwWa Mg0XTT0BSZSXS8W2TXAPguCi9rGiS0o6F8yujnw7oJxFe1r7qUl41V4l8fmlsWE5u07F FCt6YTpxcjZzP8A4KptexhGU7irVw2A8fKXDA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; b=Q6pllnwVxYV7iOUU/JqJPCaAR7kFawOpiLzaz2135COfVGB9IXRGvQs673Zy4d4zwm 3mmxLHF6EPlBw6HDSCKmZHVauTQRQUx4qGOdhvbhp7AV/44uxoZJL3hsJT1wnP/ztARY 6XLppNDsrD59ri55XxM4zOu5MlbQQgxQza+1E=
Received: by 10.42.154.136 with SMTP id q8mr7645486icw.213.1309227012614; Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LENOVO47E041CF ([218.241.103.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w11sm3350026ibw.58.2011.06.27.19.10.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 27 Jun 2011 19:10:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <D1A52880BF46454D88C1195039F74F0B@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
To: "Dave CROCKER" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <509038263.54166@cnnic.cn><002b01cc3387$067b7ee0$c901a8c0@YaoJK> <509041974.38791@cnnic.cn>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:10:05 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 02:10:18 -0000
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From klensin@jck.com  Tue Jun 28 06:37:30 2011
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 181E011E80B8 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:37:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cIvZMQCrFB2a for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1BC11E80CC for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QbYTl-000Bx0-6I; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:37:25 -0400
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:37:24 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net, Jiankang Yao <healthyao@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E524BBD488A5E110FF889D0C@PST.JCK.COM>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:37:30 -0000

--On Saturday, June 25, 2011 16:10 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 6/25/2011 4:01 PM, Jiankang Yao wrote:
>> It seems that you favor the Unicode-pure for the trace field;
> 
> I believe that that is consistent with the current goals of
> the working group, yes.

>...
> However as I noted earlier today, support for hybrid
> environments was removed as a goal for the working group and
> it has greatly simplified all other portions of these two
> documents.


Dave,

This is personal opinion... any declaration of consensus, etc.,
will need to come from Joseph.

I think we have a small disconnect about definitions here, one
that is making a conclusive discussion harder.

>From one perspective, the WG decision was simply to remove the
idea of doing downgrading on the fly.  All of the other
concessions to, and design decisions for, operating in an
environment in which legacy systems (those that did not support
the EAI extensions) would send mail to and receive mail from
EAI-conforming systems would remain or at least be part of
separate discussions.  Such legacy systems obviously could not
send or receive messages that required the capabilities that the
EAI extension enabled, but that is the nature of SMTP extensions.

The other perspective --the one that I think you have
consistently assumed-- is that the in-transit downgrading was
the essential feature of a "hybrid" environment and that
elimination of in-transit downgrading as a goal was a WG
decision to drop all support for such "hybrid" environments.  (I
use quotes because the term does not appear in any EAI
WG-produced spec nor, as far as I know, has it ever been clearly
defined.)

There are a number of situations in which the difference between
those two definitions (or, if one prefers, models) is important.
As a trivial example, suppose we have SMTP client that has no
EAI (or IDNA) support and that is trying to send a message to
someuser@some.domain (with "someuser" entirely in ASCII and
"some.domain" containing characters that correspond strictly to
the preferred hostname syntax of RFC 1034 (no IDNA involved).
Suppose that SMTP client does the required lookup on
"some.domain" and gets:
    some.domain. IN MX 10 smtp.some.domain.
                    MX 20 smtp.other.domain.
but that "other.domain" contains A-labels and that the host
identified by that FQDN is EAI-capable (and advertises that in
its EHLO response).

We've advised that EAI-capable target sites not list sites as
lower-preference MXs unless they are also EAI capable.  We've
not given advice that EAI-unaware sites avoid having
lower-preference MXs that are EAI-capable (partially because
such advice would be ignored and would almost certainly retard
EAI deployment), so the above case is plausible.

Now, if smtp.some.domain accepts the connection, we have a pure
SMTP environment in which EAI is not involved in any way.
However, if it cannot be reached, the connection would go to
"smtp.other.domain".   It is EAI-capable, so, by some ways of
reading the recent threads, it should insert trace subfields
(particularly "Received: ... from ...") that include its own
domain name in U-label (UTF-8) form.  A message containing UTF-8
data in its trace field(s) (or any other header field) cannot be
passed on to any host that does not support EAI, nor can it be
bounced to such a host, so having smtp.other.domain make that
decision would immediately drop the message into a black hole as
neither forwardable to smtp.some.domain nor bouncable to the
original client without violating the spec.  To me, that is an
obvious silly state, independent of what we have to say about
smtp.other.domain and hybrid models.   On the other hand, if it
inserts its name in A-label form, things are just fine even
though the host that sent to it and the host to which it intends
to relay are both EAI-ignorant.

So it seems to me that, to retain the integrity of the legacy
email system but permit EAI-capable hosts to be listed in
lower-preference MX records for non-EAI-capable targets, the
host at smtp.other.domain must either always use A-labels in any
IDNs it needs to place in "Received...from" subfields or must
use them when relying to a server that does not support EAI (but
may use U-labels when relaying to an EAI-capable server).  

I see things as more complicated (and ironically as making less
difference for the reasons Ned, John Levine, and others give) if
the message that the intermediate host receives requires EAI
features (e.g., non-ASCII address information) and the
submission client asked for those features with a MAIL
parameter.   For those cases, we've already told people that
having EAI-incapable hosts in the MX chain is a bad idea, the
originating host is presumably EAI-capable, and a little UTF-8
leakage is unlikely to significantly compound our problems.  My
instinct is that we would be better off with A-labels in any
IDNs that appear, mostly because it would lower the odds of
systems getting the decisions wrong, but I recognize the
arguments of Shawn and others that U-labels may be better.  And,
again, I don't think it makes a lot of difference -- people will
do what they think is easiest and that may depend on the
internal logic of MTAs.  

But for what I think you are describing as a hybrid case, at
least the one illustrated above, I think the intermediate/relay
host has better behave as if it were not EAI-capable.  Indeed, I
think that we added that MAIL parameter (partially at your
insistence, if I recall) precisely to let the relay host make
the decision about whether EAI capabilities are needed (of
course, if an SMTP client sends non-ASCII UTF-8 address or
header material without sending that parameter, it is on its
own, but that is not the case I'm concerned about).

best,
   john







From jyee@afilias.info  Tue Jun 28 06:39:16 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DB5711E80CE for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Be9rZvTqqxG2 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD4F011E80B8 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QbYVV-0004YH-4B for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:39:13 +0000
Received: from mail-gy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.160.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QbYVV-0001fs-3U for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:39:13 +0000
Received: by gyf1 with SMTP id 1so80843gyf.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.109.8 with SMTP id l8mr8501160ybm.27.1309268351756; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.108] (76-10-183-60.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.183.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l22sm53176ybl.12.2011.06.28.06.38.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 06:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:38:46 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3732C9D5-1307-45DC-8823-98CF3720B707@afilias.info>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:39:16 -0000

On 2011-06-25, at 5:43 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

>=20
>=20
> On 6/25/2011 12:54 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Hi.
>> Personal opinion only...
>>=20
>> My experience in trying to track missing or broken email
>> messages across multiple environments leads me to believe that
>> information in trace fields should be confined to the more
>> universal forms possible and that they should not rely on any
>> sort of extended, advanced, or enhanced features if that can
>> possibly be avoided.
>>=20
>> I recognize, and agree with, the view that, if we were designing
>> a new mail system today, we would want to accept characters
>> drawn from a large subset of Unicode anywhere that a "character"
>> could occur.  But I also recognize that, while some communities
>> will probably adopt EAI very quickly, we are likely facing a
>> long transition before the whole Internet catches up.
>=20
> You appear to be continuing with the working group's old model, rather =
than applying the new model.  The old model worried about hybrid =
environments, where some places support Unicode and some do not.
>=20
> To repeat what has now been repeated many times:
>=20
>     The new model that was adopted months ago is of a Unicode-pure =
environment.

Speaking as co-chair:

Up to now the term "Unicode-pure" was used as the new informal working =
model suggestion, but it was never adopted by the WG formally, and the =
suggestion of the "Unicode-pure" itself was not clearly defined.  If =
it's truly Unicode-pure, field names can be Unicode, day & month in =
"Dates:" can be Unicode.  There are details not discussed + addressed.

Reviewing past WG discussions most agreed (although no formal =
declaration has been made) on the new ABNF approach where messages are =
treated as Unicode-pure. The revised ABNF allows comments, atoms, =
quoted-strings, unstructured text to contain Unicode.  Certainly the WG =
has not discussed limiting certain fields values to ASCII-only in depth, =
much less to the point of a conclusion being reached.  This current =
thread has some discussions going on, and so far no issues have been =
repeated after WG conclusions were reached.

So a consensus call will be made very soon on trace fields, and the WG =
may assess all other fields in similar situation, and determine (another =
consensus call) whether to adopt Unicode-pure model or not.

Also, the terms "old model" and "hybrid environment" are not adopted by =
WG.  What's dropped from "old model" is in transit downgrade mechanism =
defined in RFC5504.  EAI is still an extension of SMTP RFC5321, still =
supports ASCII-only mail exchanges defined by RFC5321 and RFC5322.=20

>=20
>     There will, indeed, need to be gateways between the ASCII-only =
legacy world and the new, Unicode-pure world, but the work to deal with =
that has been explicitly moved outside of the current two documents.

One of the formal consensus result =
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04031.html), makes =
it clear that gateway is not mandatory if ASCII-only legacy and =
EAI-capable MTA exchanges ASCII-only messages.

This consensus still stands regardless whether EAI is Unicode-pure or =
not.  The statement above is not correct.

Best Regards,
Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI


>=20
> So while your estimate of the future is no doubt correct, it is not =
relevant to the current two documents.  The current two documents start =
from the assertion that Unicode is supported.
>=20
>=20
>> I have also experienced messages being forwarded, extracts
>> getting made and copied into others, and so on, often in ways
>> that have little or nothing to so with any standards we might
>> produce.
>=20
> This is, of course, true.  But it is true for many scenarios, not just =
for scenarios involving the trace fields.  Hence this is a more general =
issue and does not warrant specialized handling for trace fields.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> There is no question that prohibiting non-ASCII text it trace
>> fields will lose information.
>=20
> Correct.  And that's why it is a mistake to impose restrictions, for =
an environment that has already been declared to be Unicode-pure.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>> The tradeoff is complicated.
>=20
> Indeed it is... for the hybrid model.  The working group tried to deal =
with that complexity.  The decision some months ago was, instead, to =
make things simple. The only challenge now is to make sure that things =
are /kept/ simple.
>=20
> d/
> --=20
>=20
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima


From healthyao@gmail.com  Tue Jun 28 08:09:47 2011
Return-Path: <healthyao@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F276921F857B for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:09:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxZVRffLlT3A for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D0021F8573 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so308390iwn.31 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:cc:references:subject:date:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-priority:x-msmail-priority :x-mailer:x-mimeole; bh=SjiUWsA7ddYvJJ+Aolh16z55Ywf9tIU3+gvwBTAedw4=; b=cUMUsgIx8LDPy/bZsrrpCjkLafbNpBAB4w1eJoYVO4BJIEHBRSmZ5XNROqHx1soomm oT5Mn09YcuRL8roMj9MxWovffXZQcgyllNO7/b7LgyghgFv1g0y4ICRx92+G1meWEUJW 1moj5t8HpZlBrYwTrXZNuHot8T+0g9rtfZfok=
Received: by 10.42.142.3 with SMTP id q3mr6946012icu.243.1309273775141; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from YaoJK ([114.240.69.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a9sm203728icy.18.2011.06.28.08.09.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <006e01cc35a5$631f66a0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
From: "Jiankang Yao" <healthyao@gmail.com>
To: "Joseph Yee" <jyee@afilias.info>, <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10><4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net> <509268364.03590@cnnic.cn>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:09:14 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3664
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:09:47 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Yee" <jyee@afilias.info>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Cc: <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields


>
>
> So a consensus call will be made very soon on trace fields, and the WG may
> assess all other fields in similar situation, and determine (another
> consensus call) whether to adopt Unicode-pure model or not.
>

I hope that the a consensus call  can be sent ASAP and the result can be
sent to the list a few days before the draft deadline (11 July).
RFC5336bis is waiting for the consensus result.

thanks a lot.

Jiankang Yao


From johnl@iecc.com  Tue Jun 28 09:14:57 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E6C11E80EE for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108.333
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.866, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xeg0bo6xJQ2t for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CA0111E80E6 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:14:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4718 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 16:14:48 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 28 Jun 2011 16:14:48 -0000
Received: (qmail 58935 invoked from network); 28 Jun 2011 16:14:48 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 28 Jun 2011 16:14:48 -0000
Date: 28 Jun 2011 16:14:26 -0000
Message-ID: <20110628161426.46609.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <E524BBD488A5E110FF889D0C@PST.JCK.COM>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:14:57 -0000

>Now, if smtp.some.domain accepts the connection, we have a pure SMTP
>environment in which EAI is not involved in any way.  However, if it
>cannot be reached, the connection would go to "smtp.other.domain".
>It is EAI-capable, so, by some ways of reading the recent threads, it
>should insert trace subfields (particularly "Received: ... from ...")
>that include its own domain name in U-label (UTF-8) form. ...

I don't think so.

We've defined two parallel mail streams, legacy and EAI.  Each SMTP
transaction is one or the other. Mail can move freely from legacy to
EAI, but only sometimes and with difficulty from EAI back to legacy.
This is so for any EAI MTA, no secondary MX required.

Since it will be a long time until the world is all EAI, as a quality
of implementation issue, MTAs should leave mail in the legacy stream
whenever possible to maximize the chance that it can be delivered to
a legacy-only destination. So if I were writing an MTA, I would put
A-labels in the Received: headers in mail in the legacy stream, and
UTF-8 in the Received: headers in the EAI stream.

We had a discussion a few months back essentially about how an MTA
would handle the two streams. One possiblity is to keep an EAI flag
with each message based on which stream it arrived from, and changed
only when forwarded from the legacy stream to an EAI address.  Another
is to do what I called Deep Message Inspection (DMI), look through the
envelope and contents of a message at the time it's relayed to see if
it needs EAI. As far as we decided anything, we decided that those
were both reasonable approaches, with the former being a lot faster
and the latter possibly rescuing mail that had arrived via the EAI
stream but turned out not to need EAI features.

You could argue that in a DMI environment, you might have just added a
UTF-8 header to an otherwise legacy message that arrived via the EAI
stream, which you now can't deliver.  Even if you believe that's a
likely problem (I don't), again, it's a quality of implementation
issue to downgrade a Received: header that it just added if that's all
it needs to do.

So anyway, I don't see a problem. EAI mail is EAI mail, legacy mail
is legacy mail.

R's,
John


From jyee@afilias.info  Wed Jun 29 12:06:03 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8623B11E80AD for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sTQ+4PLaTogB for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB93111E809D for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1Qc05J-0004Yb-4s for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:06:01 +0000
Received: from mail-qy0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1Qc05J-0006Mo-4Q for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:06:01 +0000
Received: by qyl38 with SMTP id 38so2701409qyl.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.17.200 with SMTP id t8mr848020qca.295.1309374360855; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g7sm1107580qck.32.2011.06.29.12.05.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <006e01cc35a5$631f66a0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:05:55 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2B677F71-C3A4-4BFD-93E6-DF1AE0F9B70C@afilias.info>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10><4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net> <509268364.03590@cnnic.cn> <006e01cc35a5$631f66a0$c901a8c0@YaoJK>
To: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:06:03 -0000

All,

I will announce the consensus result at July 3 (00:01am US Eastern) =
regarding trace fields.  Please continue all discussions regarding trace =
fields with the current conversation thread.  I am monitoring all time.

If anyone's not satisfy of the July 3 result, please send to WG mailing =
list with your reasons.  During this phase I'm looking for issues not =
addressed by WG previously.  If necessary, a revised final consensus =
will announce at July 5, 23:59 US Eastern.

I had already captured views and opinions from several participants =
already.  If you have not express your view yet, please do so as soon as =
possible and before the July 3 deadline.  If you have any concerns or =
questions, please raise them here too, constant frequent discussions =
help.

Again, the focus is whether trace field values support Unicode beyond =
ASCII, or ASCII-only.  All other fields will be discussed in separate =
thread.

Best Regards,
Joseph Yee, co-chair of EAI


On 2011-06-28, at 11:09 AM, Jiankang Yao wrote:

>=20
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joseph Yee" <jyee@afilias.info>
> To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
> Cc: <ima@ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields
>=20
>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> So a consensus call will be made very soon on trace fields, and the =
WG may
>> assess all other fields in similar situation, and determine (another
>> consensus call) whether to adopt Unicode-pure model or not.
>>=20
>=20
> I hope that the a consensus call  can be sent ASAP and the result can =
be
> sent to the list a few days before the draft deadline (11 July).
> RFC5336bis is waiting for the consensus result.
>=20
> thanks a lot.
>=20
> Jiankang Yao
>=20


From jyee@afilias.info  Wed Jun 29 12:16:48 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7527D11E80D2 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kvIq0A6c1ZFJ for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 128B511E80AA for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1Qc05p-0004qn-8S for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:06:33 +0000
Received: from mail-qw0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1Qc05p-0006NW-4e for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:06:33 +0000
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so815149qwe.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.218.66 with SMTP id hp2mr852028qab.291.1309374391710; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g7sm1107580qck.32.2011.06.29.12.06.30 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:06:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <70A2A3CC-9D76-450D-9A11-1311AAA40828@afilias.info>
References: <20110624183513.7035311E81A8@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [EAI] Fwd: Please help the Nomcom
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:16:48 -0000

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: NomCom Chair <nomcom-chair@ietf.org>
> Date: June 24, 2011 2:35:13 PM EDT
> To: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
> Subject: Please help the Nomcom
> 
> Hi WG chairs,
>  We have had a good response to the first call for volunteers but the 
> rate at which new volunteers are coming in is slowing down. The Nomcom 
> process is best served by a large pool of volunteers drawn from a wide 
> spectrum of IETF attendees. Where else would we find this wide spectrum
> if not in the WG mailing lists.
> 
> I would really appreciate it if you can forward the message onto your
> working group mailing lists. 
> 
> The latest volunteer status and the second call for volunteers can be
> found at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/2964/
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help.
> 
> Suresh Krishnan
> Nomcom Chair 2011-2012
> Email: nomcom-chair@ietf.org, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com


From jyee@afilias.info  Wed Jun 29 12:28:20 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818DF11E80E4 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.965
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.965 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5mxpDd0AS-ws for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FE511E80CD for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:28:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms5.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.111] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1Qc0Qs-0005eZ-9S for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:28:18 +0000
Received: from mail-qw0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1Qc0Qs-00074G-5b for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:28:18 +0000
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so824381qwe.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.127.21 with SMTP id e21mr903235qcs.150.1309375696561; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jyee-lt.tor.afilias-int.info (tor-gateway.afilias.info [199.15.87.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e18sm1121050qcs.41.2011.06.29.12.28.15 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:28:08 -0400
To: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <6DBE1E99-5066-45A4-B23D-A1B52E21A6A5@afilias.info>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Subject: [EAI] EAI Session schedule at IETF 81
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:28:20 -0000

All,

The tentative meeting schedule for IETF 81 is available.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/81/agenda.html

EAI scheduled at Tuesday morning.

0900-1130  Morning Session I
2103            	APP 	eai           	Email Address =
Internationalization WG
204 B           	APP 	httpauth    	HTTP Authentication BOF
208 AB          	IRTF	P2PRG       	Peer-to-Peer Research =
Group=20
205 ABC        OPS 	v6ops       	IPv6 Operations WG
206 A           	RAI   	geopriv     	Geographic =
Location/Privacy WG
2101            	RAI 	        xmpp        	Extensible =
Messaging and Presence Protocol WG
206 B           	RTG 	ccamp       	Common Control and =
Measurement Plane WG
202             	TSV 	tcpm        	TCP Maintenance and =
Minor Extensions WG

Please mail to either or both chairs for schedule concern or if you want =
to have some of the time slot.

Regards,
Joseph=

From klensin@jck.com  Wed Jun 29 13:06:30 2011
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B6C21F84F7 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.578
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q14fBI-Wp5p0 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383DC1F0C46 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Qc11j-000DZf-EF; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:06:23 -0400
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:06:22 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>, "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <5282FCA6D2B57CB5411F6E05@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <2B677F71-C3A4-4BFD-93E6-DF1AE0F9B70C@afilias.info>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net>	<509268364.03590@cnnic.cn> <006e01cc35a5$631f66a0$c901a8c0@YaoJK> <2B677F71-C3A4-4BFD-93E6-DF1AE0F9B70C@afilias.info>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:06:30 -0000

--On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 15:05 -0400 Joseph Yee
<jyee@afilias.info> wrote:

>...
> I had already captured views and opinions from several
> participants already.  If you have not express your view yet,
> please do so as soon as possible and before the July 3
> deadline.  If you have any concerns or questions, please raise
> them here too, constant frequent discussions help.
> 
> Again, the focus is whether trace field values support Unicode
> beyond ASCII, or ASCII-only.  All other fields will be
> discussed in separate thread.

Joseph,

I think there are actually two separate questions:

	(1) Domain names in the "from" clause of "Received:".
	
	(2) Everything else.

I won't reprise my earlier note but, for the first question,
there are several cases in which an EAI-aware system may be
called upon to send, forward, or return a message that has no
[other] internal requirements for EAI capabilities to an
EAI-unaware system.  For that situation, we could specify "ASCII
always" (i.e., use A-labels if the domain is an IDN regardless
of the EAI status of the message or destination), "ASCII if
needed" (use A-labels iff the destination if not EAI-capable),
or "U-labels if IDNs are involved (which, given that scenario,
involves either sending a non-conforming message or trashing or
droping it).

The situation for all other trace field cases is different:
there will not be a requirement for representation of characters
outside the ASCII repertoire unless the incoming message
requires EAI capabilities.

      john



From jyee@afilias.info  Thu Jun 30 00:14:39 2011
Return-Path: <jyee@afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B4E11E816D for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MsUSdc+GQpiu for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:14:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 636F311E8151 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ms6.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.112] helo=smtp.afilias.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QcBSO-0006lY-61 for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:14:36 +0000
Received: from mail-gy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.160.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jyee@afilias.info>) id 1QcBSO-0004o3-8Y for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:14:36 +0000
Received: by gyf1 with SMTP id 1so796065gyf.9 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.32.20 with SMTP id f20mr1636060ybf.172.1309418076109; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.106] (76-10-183-60.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.183.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q5sm1857619ybi.7.2011.06.30.00.14.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Joseph Yee <jyee@afilias.info>
In-Reply-To: <5282FCA6D2B57CB5411F6E05@PST.JCK.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:14:32 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D8540307-F553-4FB4-8021-3802F43DC6A5@afilias.info>
References: <7531FB3D09698AF1F1657E19@JCK-EEE10> <4E06569C.3090900@dcrocker.net>	<509268364.03590@cnnic.cn> <006e01cc35a5$631f66a0$c901a8c0@YaoJK> <2B677F71-C3A4-4BFD-93E6-DF1AE0F9B70C@afilias.info> <5282FCA6D2B57CB5411F6E05@PST.JCK.COM>
To: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" <ima@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:14:40 -0000

On 2011-06-29, at 4:06 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

>=20
>=20
> --On Wednesday, June 29, 2011 15:05 -0400 Joseph Yee
> <jyee@afilias.info> wrote:
>=20
>> ...
>> I had already captured views and opinions from several
>> participants already.  If you have not express your view yet,
>> please do so as soon as possible and before the July 3
>> deadline.  If you have any concerns or questions, please raise
>> them here too, constant frequent discussions help.
>>=20
>> Again, the focus is whether trace field values support Unicode
>> beyond ASCII, or ASCII-only.  All other fields will be
>> discussed in separate thread.
>=20
> Joseph,
>=20
> I think there are actually two separate questions:
>=20
> 	(1) Domain names in the "from" clause of "Received:".
> =09
> 	(2) Everything else.

Thanks, and yes, these 2 are different.  I didn't make the question =
specific enough in first mail.

Joseph

>=20
> I won't reprise my earlier note but, for the first question,
> there are several cases in which an EAI-aware system may be
> called upon to send, forward, or return a message that has no
> [other] internal requirements for EAI capabilities to an
> EAI-unaware system.  For that situation, we could specify "ASCII
> always" (i.e., use A-labels if the domain is an IDN regardless
> of the EAI status of the message or destination), "ASCII if
> needed" (use A-labels iff the destination if not EAI-capable),
> or "U-labels if IDNs are involved (which, given that scenario,
> involves either sending a non-conforming message or trashing or
> droping it).
>=20
> The situation for all other trace field cases is different:
> there will not be a requirement for representation of characters
> outside the ASCII repertoire unless the incoming message
> requires EAI capabilities.
>=20
>      john
>=20
>=20


From johnl@iecc.com  Thu Jun 30 06:47:51 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E1E11E8078 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.368
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.831, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wCgqvWpy+AtI for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F6B11E8071 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 06:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 25482 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2011 13:47:46 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 30 Jun 2011 13:47:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 92702 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2011 13:47:45 -0000
Received: from mail1.iecc.com (64.57.183.56) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Jun 2011 13:47:45 -0000
Date: 30 Jun 2011 13:47:23 -0000
Message-ID: <20110630134723.71427.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <D8540307-F553-4FB4-8021-3802F43DC6A5@afilias.info>
Organization: 
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:47:51 -0000

>> For that situation, we could specify "ASCII always" (i.e., use
>> A-labels if the domain is an IDN regardless of the EAI status of
>> the message or destination), "ASCII if needed" (use A-labels iff
>> the destination if not EAI-capable), or "U-labels if IDNs are
>> involved (which, given that scenario, involves either sending a
>> non-conforming message or trashing or droping it).

That still strikes me as a quality of implementation issue.  For best
backward compatibility, you should keep messages in the legacy stream
whenever you can, but using A-labels in the Received: headers is just
part of that.

R's,
John




From klensin@jck.com  Thu Jun 30 09:33:10 2011
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6955411E8085 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.636
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.636 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-mAnGkuK854 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1C211E8220 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QcKAp-0007V1-J9; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:33:03 -0400
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:33:02 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <4CC90CCF28D111C8C5FCF78E@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <20110630134723.71427.qmail@joyce.lan>
References: <20110630134723.71427.qmail@joyce.lan>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:33:10 -0000

--On Thursday, June 30, 2011 13:47 +0000 John Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>>> For that situation, we could specify "ASCII always" (i.e.,
>>> use A-labels if the domain is an IDN regardless of the EAI
>>> status of the message or destination), "ASCII if needed"
>>> (use A-labels iff the destination if not EAI-capable), or
>>> "U-labels if IDNs are involved (which, given that scenario,
>>> involves either sending a non-conforming message or trashing
>>> or droping it).
> 
> That still strikes me as a quality of implementation issue.
> For best backward compatibility, you should keep messages in
> the legacy stream whenever you can, but using A-labels in the
> Received: headers is just part of that.

If we say "put something useful into the Received... from"
subfield, that might make it a quality of implementation issue
(Jiankang probably needs significant advice on how to write that
text).  If we say "you SHOULD use UTF-8 forms, rather than any
other Unicode encoding form, if possible", then we take on some
obligation to at least explain this issue and when it is not
possible or we turn using the A-labels into non-conformant
behavior, not a quality of implementation issue.  

There is also an issue of conformance to 5321.  We may decide we
don't care --although that would be a somewhat odd attitude to
take in a standards-track document, IMO-- but having a client
send non-ASCII header material to a server that does not
advertise EAI is pretty clearly a violation of 5321, not just a
quality of implementation issue.

IMO, this is really pretty easy if we accept the fact that an
EAI MTA must be able to simulate a MTA that is strictly
conforming to 5321 (I believe that is a general requirement of
the SMTP Extension mechanism; YMMD).   Then:

	An EAI-capable client MUST either be able to send a
	5321-conformant message to a non-EAI-capable server or
	MUST reject or return the message.  Only the second is
	plausible in the absence of downgrading facilities if
	the message requires EAI capabilities.
	
	An EAI-capable client SHOULD send messages what require
	EAI functionality in UTF-8 form to servers that do
	support EAI functionality.

Now, if we can agree on those two principles, I can see text
that permits either A-labels or U-labels in "Received...from"
subfields and the choice being a quality of implementation issue
as long as the principles aren't violated and we don't back
ourselves into a corner in which it is necessary to bounce
messages that started out 5321-compliant.

   john



From johnl@taugh.com  Thu Jun 30 09:53:44 2011
Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A7411E8212 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w3G4D2J2y2XP for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E536C11E8203 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26824 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2011 16:53:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=68c7.4e0caa13.k1106; bh=tzxg7J9+oPBmINra1pCa9IkmnxSxUz3Ddbui0LCpsxI=; b=bXrG3EnFLY57bIAmdoEyt3aBJUiPL03PFIyepdboiMs1q2XqF2LPzb+QtH5EfakuEVfZa7DNF7X3qbTfNQ5dHSq5yz+EB6ueJE1cOpMpdfm5wY/hXon/ly2HoNE4pOtsDjm3MRl4NrN4YQcoMwGIszVHfWV15hK/1tOQ8mEs1jM=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:vbr-info:user-agent:cleverness; s=68c7.4e0caa13.k1106; bh=tzxg7J9+oPBmINra1pCa9IkmnxSxUz3Ddbui0LCpsxI=; b=BB8baPB71zq34zXEk9BebPckeBr34v3zrnTQYWlrDcJCY7+MQmuSYUOUuY05jZOc45JeD38rQueixT9ZMmos65eehRhIXqDD7HMaaWOKhAWDLkSJuNAIP4AquXZdl/QSKrnTTBWyQXzO0VVc+0JvgVu+aEfMRF+yagquUz2oib4=
VBR-Info: md=iecc.com; mc=all; mv=dwl.spamhaus.org
Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1) with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 30 Jun 2011 16:53:17 -0000
Date: 30 Jun 2011 12:53:39 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106301244420.19785@joyce.lan>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "John C Klensin" <klensin@jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CC90CCF28D111C8C5FCF78E@PST.JCK.COM>
References: <20110630134723.71427.qmail@joyce.lan> <4CC90CCF28D111C8C5FCF78E@PST.JCK.COM>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:53:44 -0000

> IMO, this is really pretty easy if we accept the fact that an
> EAI MTA must be able to simulate a MTA that is strictly
> conforming to 5321 (I believe that is a general requirement of
> the SMTP Extension mechanism; YMMD).

Right, unless it's in a closed all-EAI network or something else exotic. 
If a message comes using the normal SMTP commands, no EAI parameter on the 
MAIL FROM, it's a legacy message and it would be nice if the MTA kept it 
as a legacy message if it relays it to a legacy address.

That's why I keep talking about the legacy stream and the EAI stream. 
For mail in the legacy stream, the MTA has to be a legacy MTA and put 
legacy 5321 headers on the mail.  The quality of implementation issue (for 
me at least) is how hard the MTA works to keep messages in the legacy 
stream, e.g., if a message arrives in the EAI stream, but its contents and 
envelope happen not to need any EAI features, it would be nice if the MTA 
treated it as a legacy message.  But I wouldn't want to mandate that, 
since that requires deep message inspection which is more than some MTAs 
may want to do.

I think we agree what we want here, although perhaps we differ about how 
best to describe it.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

From klensin@jck.com  Thu Jun 30 10:10:58 2011
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2A411E8269 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.634
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28x4U1vAlowh for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C5FE11E8264 for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1QcKlU-000800-Df; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:10:56 -0400
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:10:55 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Message-ID: <47C21E0491A9829947E373DF@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106301244420.19785@joyce.lan>
References: <20110630134723.71427.qmail@joyce.lan> <4CC90CCF28D111C8C5FCF78E@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106301244420.19785@joyce.lan>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:10:58 -0000

--On Thursday, June 30, 2011 12:53 -0400 John R Levine
<johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

>> IMO, this is really pretty easy if we accept the fact that an
>> EAI MTA must be able to simulate a MTA that is strictly
>> conforming to 5321 (I believe that is a general requirement of
>> the SMTP Extension mechanism; YMMD).
> 
> Right, unless it's in a closed all-EAI network or something
> else exotic. If a message comes using the normal SMTP
> commands, no EAI parameter on the MAIL FROM, it's a legacy
> message and it would be nice if the MTA kept it as a legacy
> message if it relays it to a legacy address.
> 
> That's why I keep talking about the legacy stream and the EAI
> stream. For mail in the legacy stream, the MTA has to be a
> legacy MTA and put legacy 5321 headers on the mail.  The
> quality of implementation issue (for me at least) is how hard
> the MTA works to keep messages in the legacy stream, e.g., if
> a message arrives in the EAI stream, but its contents and
> envelope happen not to need any EAI features, it would be nice
> if the MTA treated it as a legacy message.  But I wouldn't
> want to mandate that, since that requires deep message
> inspection which is more than some MTAs may want to do.
> 
> I think we agree what we want here, although perhaps we differ
> about how best to describe it.

I have thought so, but wasn't sure until now.  

And, fwiw, building that description around the notion that EAI
MTAs need to handle incoming messages that don't request EAI
features as legacy (5321-conforming) messages works for me...
I'm fairly agnostic about whether than is described as "legacy
stream and EAI stream" or not.   I get nervous when people say
things that sound like "EAI-capable MTAs always need to behave
as if UTF-8-everything is the norm, independent of what they
receive".  I think that, in your terms, the latter is "one
stream only for EAI-conformant systems" and leads to completely
unnecessary message rejections.

    john






From ned+ima@mrochek.com  Thu Jun 30 10:11:49 2011
Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA89D11E826D for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.949
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650,  BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gtf3pj-UJTti for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF77411E826C for <ima@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O339LOAC5S00VXFN@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O2V4E7XQZK00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:11:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01O339LN8QQE00VHKR@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:53:39 -0400" <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106301244420.19785@joyce.lan>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format=flowed
References: <20110630134723.71427.qmail@joyce.lan> <4CC90CCF28D111C8C5FCF78E@PST.JCK.COM> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1106301244420.19785@joyce.lan>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1309453461; bh=+rpsBo+g0+KjkvYzGzz+pZT91aWtr82n5W9u07lGQ58=; h=From:Cc:Message-id:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:MIME-version: Content-type:References:To; b=iBHPLEM3/q8rPRH00vnA4pUZisJQVov9G2N4I7/rlPcDJ1M+aDRlaAHc8Fkt2v8Ku AYnuJ+P+6rdwnzJUh4ZBrxoN07ZaxWxMhDRcjDC4XAXZyQpB8Mh6VKliD6n36NzSBL xkW9ZGdhIXLyiklva3MLObs5TxRzlTvPqulXkXPU=
Cc: ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] RFC5336bis and trace fields -- consensus timeline
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:11:49 -0000

> > IMO, this is really pretty easy if we accept the fact that an
> > EAI MTA must be able to simulate a MTA that is strictly
> > conforming to 5321 (I believe that is a general requirement of
> > the SMTP Extension mechanism; YMMD).

> Right, unless it's in a closed all-EAI network or something else exotic.
> If a message comes using the normal SMTP commands, no EAI parameter on the
> MAIL FROM, it's a legacy message and it would be nice if the MTA kept it
> as a legacy message if it relays it to a legacy address.

Agreed. As long as the addresses in the envelope remain in the legacy space
there should be no reason to promote the message to EAI in an MTA. I don't
think an outright ban is a good idea though - there are a lot of wildly varying
use-cases out there.

> That's why I keep talking about the legacy stream and the EAI stream.

It's a useful way to think about it.

> For mail in the legacy stream, the MTA has to be a legacy MTA and put
> legacy 5321 headers on the mail.  The quality of implementation issue (for
> me at least) is how hard the MTA works to keep messages in the legacy
> stream, e.g.,

Exactly.

> if a message arrives in the EAI stream, but its contents and
> envelope happen not to need any EAI features, it would be nice if the MTA
> treated it as a legacy message.  But I wouldn't want to mandate that,
> since that requires deep message inspection which is more than some MTAs
> may want to do.

This is both a design and a configuration issue. We have customers running MTAs
with CPU to burn who have no problem performing deep inspection of every
message and even insist on it. But there are also sites processing huge amounts
of mail (thousands of messages a second) where the overhead of deep inspection
is flatly unacceptable. So we're going to have to have some knobs to turn for
this.

				Ned