From jyee@afilias.info Tue Jan 31 02:11:43 2012 Return-Path: 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 53DF421F867C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:11:43 -0800 (PST) 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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ThN6sF+en6vj for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:11:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C4021F8677 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:11:42 -0800 (PST) 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 ) id 1RsAgf-00027b-4p for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:11:41 +0000 Received: from mail-qy0-f178.google.com ([209.85.216.178]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsAgf-0001Hc-4E for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:11:41 +0000 Received: by qcsf16 with SMTP id f16so194476qcs.9 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:11:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.106.35 with SMTP id v35mr8055642qco.84.1328004700555; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:11:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (69-165-150-72.dsl.teksavvy.com. [69.165.150.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm40442795qaz.7.2012.01.31.02.11.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:11:39 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Yee Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-26--342337981 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:11:36 -0500 To: "ima@ietf.org WG" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: [EAI] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:11:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail-26--342337981 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii All, I made a session request for EAI at upcoming IETF (see attached). = However, it's likely that John and I would not be in Paris. I would = like to ask who will go to Paris, and what issues are the WG facing that = we need a face to face meeting to resolve. Having a meeting or not will = be determined by attendance and issues at hand. If there will be = meeting in Paris, then I will ask for volunteers to help hosting the = session. Regards, Joseph, co-chair EAI --Apple-Mail-26--342337981 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="eai - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 83.eml" Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="eai - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 83.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Delivered-To: jyee@gapps.afilias.info Received: by 10.143.91.13 with SMTP id t13csp116810wfl; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.68.115.174 with SMTP id jp14mr44557855pbb.42.1327960389304; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:53:09 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (exprod8mx242.postini.com. [64.18.3.142]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id j10si23848220pbr.72.2012.01.30.13.53.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:53:09 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 69.46.124.26 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com) client-ip=69.46.124.26; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 69.46.124.26 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com) smtp.mail=wwwrun@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from outbound.afilias.info ([69.46.124.26]) (using TLSv1) by exprod8mx242.postini.com ([64.18.7.10]) with SMTP; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:53:08 EST Received: from ms12.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.85] helo=imap.yyz2.afilias-ops.info) by outbound.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrz9v-0007rM-71 for jyee@gapps.afilias.info; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:53:07 +0000 Received: from ms1.yyz2.afilias-ops.info ([10.50.129.107] helo=gateway.afilias.info) by imap.yyz2.afilias-ops.info with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrz9u-0007f6-9c for jyee@afilias.info; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:53:06 +0000 Received: from [12.22.58.30] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by gateway.afilias.info with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Rrz9u-0006dj-5Z for jyee@afilias.info; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:53:06 +0000 Received: by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 8C9CA11E80BA; Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:52:45 -0800 (PST) From: IETF Meeting Session Request Tool To: session-request@ietf.org Cc: presnick@qualcomm.com,stpeter@stpeter.im,jyee@afilias.info,john-ietf@jck.com Subject: eai - New Meeting Session Request for IETF 83 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20120130215245.8C9CA11E80BA@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:52:45 -0800 (PST) X-pstn-levels: (S:52.48423/99.90000 CV:99.9000 FC:95.5390 LC:95.5390 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 ) X-pstn-settings: 2 (0.5000:0.5000) s cv gt3 gt2 gt1 X-pstn-addresses: from [db-null] X-pstn-nxpr: disp=neutral, envrcpt=jyee@gapps.afilias.info X-pstn-nxp: bodyHash=20cd824b3c18a0a90076de20eb1447d7e5581f8a, headerHash=512c0e2613e651b24e9ba372574505a26d058333, keyName=4, rcptHash=114a8513d552220ee46f9efebb3dbdf0cc8e1f38, sourceip=69.46.124.26, version=1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Joseph Yee, a working group chair of eai. --------------------------------------------------------- Working Group Name: eai Area Name: Applications Area Session Requester: Joseph Yee Number of Sessions: 1 Length of Session(s): 2 hours Number of Attendees: 50 Conflicts to Avoid: First Priority: apparea iri sieve marf dnsext hybi httpbis precis ftpext2 urnbis kitten abfab appsawg repute Second Priority: dnsop vcarddav decade BOF or IRTF Session: WEIRD (if became BOF), and all other BOFs in app-area Special Requests: additional 2nd priority conflict to avoid: all other APP area WGs and BOFs

thanks --------------------------------------------------------- --Apple-Mail-26--342337981-- From klensin@jck.com Tue Jan 31 02:39:08 2012 Return-Path: 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 65EAD21F861F for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:39:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.696 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qliyf76FNRNg for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA69321F861C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:39:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from [198.252.137.7] (helo=PST.JCK.COM) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1RsB3k-0006dN-3i; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:35:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:39:01 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Joseph Yee , "ima@ietf.org WG" Message-ID: <906D2BFAC8B2DEEDFAF06D2D@PST.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: References: 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] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:39:08 -0000 --On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 05:11 -0500 Joseph Yee wrote: > All, > > I made a session request for EAI at upcoming IETF (see > attached). However, it's likely that John and I would not be > in Paris. I would like to ask who will go to Paris, and what > issues are the WG facing that we need a face to face meeting > to resolve. Having a meeting or not will be determined by > attendance and issues at hand. If there will be meeting in > Paris, then I will ask for volunteers to help hosting the > session. Writing as participant more than as co-chair... The four core documents are in AUTH48 now and nearing publication (for most of them, I think we are finished as soon as some additional folks sign off). One of the causes of delay is that the editing process and AUTH48 review made it clear that WG participants didn't read these drafts nearly carefully enough. Some of the problems were just silly and easily corrected, but those problems should not have remained in the documents going into Last Call, much less being caught at AUTH48 (example: several of the references to 5335bis from the other documents had the wrong title and author list). Others were more substantive (e.g., some confusion about our actual order of preferences in part of 5336bis). We are getting them fixed up (or deciding to let them go), but the fact that they weren't caught earlier says very bad things about the quality of the WG's reviews. We have claimed that the POP, IMAP, and POP-IMAP-downgrade documents are just about ready to go. There are no outstanding consensus call issues on any of them. If people can read them now, identify any issues and have enough discussion start getting any issues resolved, we can issue a WG Last Call and have those documents in IETF Last Call before Paris. On the other hand, the experience with the core documents is going to make me, and I presume Joseph and Pete, very wary of forwarding documents into IETF Last Call unless there is evidence of significantly more careful review than we saw the last time around. If we cannot get a more appropriate level of review and discussion for the next three documents, my recommendation to Joseph and Pete will be that we shut down the WG (or put it on a long vacation) rather than trying to move forward with the other documents. If we can get the next three documents into or past IETF Last Call (good news) and we conclude that the WG should not start other work (opinions may differ on whether that would be good or bad news), then there will certainly be no reason to meet in Paris. best, john From ned+ima@mrochek.com Tue Jan 31 13:11:56 2012 Return-Path: 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 865F521F86A0 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:11:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IfHzHampbkgr for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:11:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EBA921F869C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:11:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OBFSKXROO0001ARZ@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:11:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OBEI37480W00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:11:46 -0800 (PST) From: ned+ima@mrochek.com Message-id: <01OBFSKUNLTE00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:08:19 -0800 (PST) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 31 Jan 2012 05:39:01 -0500" <906D2BFAC8B2DEEDFAF06D2D@PST.JCK.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN References: <906D2BFAC8B2DEEDFAF06D2D@PST.JCK.COM> To: John C Klensin Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [EAI] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:11:56 -0000 > We have claimed that the POP, IMAP, and POP-IMAP-downgrade > documents are just about ready to go. There are no outstanding > consensus call issues on any of them. If people can read them > now, identify any issues and have enough discussion start > getting any issues resolved, we can issue a WG Last Call and > have those documents in IETF Last Call before Paris. On the > other hand, the experience with the core documents is going to > make me, and I presume Joseph and Pete, very wary of forwarding > documents into IETF Last Call unless there is evidence of > significantly more careful review than we saw the last time > around. > If we cannot get a more appropriate level of review and > discussion for the next three documents, my recommendation to > Joseph and Pete will be that we shut down the WG (or put it on a > long vacation) rather than trying to move forward with the other > documents. I have to agree with John about this. I will also observe that when you get right down to it, the present set of documents are in fact technically fairly simple and straightforward in their approach. (And this is a good thing.) But the same most certainly cannot be said for any of these last three documents, most especially the downgrade specification. If these documents do not receive extensive and careful technical review I have to agree that the best thing to do is to abandon then for now. Breakage in any of these things is a sure recipe for a near-endless set of long term issues. Ned From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Tue Jan 31 15:02:12 2012 Return-Path: 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 3A45421F8547 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:02:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.930, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jsDFmwG4rmYX for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98AFC21F8543 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:02:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A1DFA07E8; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:02:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1328050928-30465-30464/11/3; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:02:08 +0000 User-Agent: Kaiten Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <01OBFSKUNLTE00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> References: <906D2BFAC8B2DEEDFAF06D2D@PST.JCK.COM> <01OBFSKUNLTE00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----6157NPWYNSXSR64CO67RWYCTUTEG9Q From: Arnt Gulbrandsen Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:02:06 +0100 To: ned+ima@mrochek.com, John C Klensin Message-Id: Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [EAI] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:02:12 -0000 ------6157NPWYNSXSR64CO67RWYCTUTEG9Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Which documents, exactly, should I review? I ask because when I googled = for eai imap I found one which expired in June 2010. I can review it, = fine, but I have a nasty feeling that I am again looking at an obsolete = document. Arnt ------6157NPWYNSXSR64CO67RWYCTUTEG9Q Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Which documents, exactly, should I review? I ask because when I googled = for eai imap I found one which expired in June 2010. I can review it, = fine, but I have a nasty feeling that I am again looking at an obsolete = document.

Arnt ------6157NPWYNSXSR64CO67RWYCTUTEG9Q-- From jyee@afilias.info Tue Jan 31 15:26:39 2012 Return-Path: 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 D9BC211E807F for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:26:39 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dCIeL-U7NP77 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:26:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50EDD11E8076 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:26:39 -0800 (PST) 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 ) id 1RsN5y-0007oF-7m for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:26:38 +0000 Received: from mail-pz0-f50.google.com ([209.85.210.50]) by smtp.afilias.info with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RsN5y-0003Zc-3m for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:26:38 +0000 Received: by dadp19 with SMTP id p19so538480dad.9 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:26:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.189.196 with SMTP id gk4mr54216855pbc.44.1328052397179; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:26:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.147.1 with HTTP; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:26:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <906D2BFAC8B2DEEDFAF06D2D@PST.JCK.COM> <01OBFSKUNLTE00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:26:37 -0500 Message-ID: From: Joseph Yee To: Arnt Gulbrandsen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1cc1260815104b7db4bd0 Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [EAI] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:26:40 -0000 --e89a8ff1cc1260815104b7db4bd0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Arnt, All EAI documents are available at IETF WG page: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/eai/ The most recent IMAP draft published at 2011-12-26 (day after Christmas). Best Joseph On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: > Which documents, exactly, should I review? I ask because when I googled > for eai imap I found one which expired in June 2010. I can review it, fine, > but I have a nasty feeling that I am again looking at an obsolete document. > > Arnt > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > > --e89a8ff1cc1260815104b7db4bd0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Arnt,

All EAI documents are available at IETF WG page= :

The most recent IMAP draf= t published at 2011-12-26 (day after Christmas).

Best
Joseph
--e89a8ff1cc1260815104b7db4bd0-- From arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no Tue Jan 31 15:50:53 2012 Return-Path: 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 5B9A921F8547 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:50:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.289 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.289 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.309, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FfHVgTxgh6IW for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC30421F849C for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:50:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37963FA0809; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:50:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpsa id 1328053848-30465-30464/11/4; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:50:48 +0000 User-Agent: Kaiten Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <906D2BFAC8B2DEEDFAF06D2D@PST.JCK.COM> <01OBFSKUNLTE00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=----7G3Y8Y4C0XLA9RL9TXTLRZJU9ZJKDI From: Arnt Gulbrandsen Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:50:46 +0100 To: ned+ima@mrochek.com, John C Klensin Message-Id: Cc: "ima@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [EAI] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:50:53 -0000 ------7G3Y8Y4C0XLA9RL9TXTLRZJU9ZJKDI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I chased some links. 5738bis does not say what happens if a server advertises utf8=3Donly and = a client uses mutf7. I suggest a mandatory NO (rendering that part if = the namespace inaccessible forever). I like 5738bis otherwise. I am not capable of judging the pop document tonight. I found the = irrelevant LANG feature too aggravating. Downgrade is, IMHO, rather too complex. It seems to be very god work, = but so complex. Does downgrade really need to be that good? I like the = address treatment, and subject needs to be downgraded, but the rest? = It's a lot of work, a great many test cases, and I fear that the only = people who care are the ones who implement EAI and never need the = downgraded version. Arnt ------7G3Y8Y4C0XLA9RL9TXTLRZJU9ZJKDI Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I chased some links.

5738bis does not say what happens if a server advertises utf8=3Donly and = a client uses mutf7. I suggest a mandatory NO (rendering that part if = the namespace inaccessible forever). I like 5738bis otherwise.

I am not capable of judging the pop document tonight. I found the = irrelevant LANG feature too aggravating.

Downgrade is, IMHO, rather too complex. It seems to be very god work, = but so complex. Does downgrade really need to be that good? I like the = address treatment, and subject needs to be downgraded, but the rest? = It's a lot of work, a great many test cases, and I fear that the = only people who care are the ones who implement EAI and never need the = downgraded version.


Arnt ------7G3Y8Y4C0XLA9RL9TXTLRZJU9ZJKDI-- From yaojk@cnnic.cn Tue Jan 31 19:01:12 2012 Return-Path: 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 5E93011E80B6 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:01:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.454, BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K2KFY68qsPTv for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:01:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7248B11E8096 for ; Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:01:09 -0800 (PST) X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown127.0.0.1 (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:01:04 +0800 Message-ID: <22626165B25D46488589916B0732B3B4@LENOVO47E041CF> From: "Jiankang YAO" To: "Joseph Yee" , References: Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:01:07 +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 V6.00.2900.6157 Subject: Re: [EAI] Determine for EAI to meet at IETF83 or not X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 03:01:12 -0000 SWYgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvbWUgaW1wb3J0YW50IGlzc3VlIHRvIGJlIGRpc2N1c3NlZCwgSSB0aGlu ayB0aGF0IGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBwb3AtaW1hcC1kb3duZ3JhZGUgaXNzdWUuDQoNCkFueXdheSwg SSB3aWxsIGJlIGluIFBhcmlzLg0KDQpKaWFua2FuZyBZYW8NCg0KLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVz c2FnZSAtLS0tLSANCkZyb206ICJKb3NlcGggWWVlIiA8anllZUBhZmlsaWFzLmluZm8+DQpUbzog PGltYUBpZXRmLm9yZz4NClNlbnQ6IFR1ZXNkYXksIEphbnVhcnkgMzEsIDIwMTIgNjoxMSBQTQ0K U3ViamVjdDogW0VBSV0gRGV0ZXJtaW5lIGZvciBFQUkgdG8gbWVldCBhdCBJRVRGODMgb3Igbm90 DQoNCg0KQWxsLA0KDQpJIG1hZGUgYSBzZXNzaW9uIHJlcXVlc3QgZm9yIEVBSSBhdCB1cGNvbWlu ZyBJRVRGIChzZWUgYXR0YWNoZWQpLiAgSG93ZXZlciwgaXQncyBsaWtlbHkgdGhhdCBKb2huIGFu ZCBJIHdvdWxkIG5vdCBiZSBpbiBQYXJpcy4gIEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBhc2sgd2hvIHdpbGwg Z28gdG8gUGFyaXMsIGFuZCB3aGF0IGlzc3VlcyBhcmUgdGhlIFdHIGZhY2luZyB0aGF0IHdlIG5l ZWQgYSBmYWNlIHRvIGZhY2UgbWVldGluZyB0byByZXNvbHZlLiAgSGF2aW5nIGEgbWVldGluZyBv ciBub3Qgd2lsbCBiZSBkZXRlcm1pbmVkIGJ5IGF0dGVuZGFuY2UgYW5kIGlzc3VlcyBhdCBoYW5k LiAgSWYgdGhlcmUgd2lsbCBiZSBtZWV0aW5nIGluIFBhcmlzLCB0aGVuIEkgd2lsbCBhc2sgZm9y IHZvbHVudGVlcnMgdG8gaGVscCBob3N0aW5nIHRoZSBzZXNzaW9uLg0KDQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsDQpK b3NlcGgsIGNvLWNoYWlyIEVBSQ0KDQoNCg0KDQotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLQ0KDQoN Cj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gSU1B IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBJTUFAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFp bG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9pbWENCj4=