From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 03:37:24 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IG8lk-0008KK-A6; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:37:20 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IG8lj-0008Hm-5e for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:37:19 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IG8li-0008C7-Mm for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:37:18 -0400 Received: from smtp.cnnic.cn ([159.226.7.146] helo=cnnic.cn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IG8lh-0004eH-60 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:37:18 -0400 Received: (eyou send program); Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:37:08 +0800 Message-ID: <385953828.14690@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO yaojk) (218.241.111.35) by 159.226.7.146 with SMTP; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:37:08 +0800 Message-ID: <0ba401c7d40e$c1a3b2f0$9b77fea9@yaojk> From: "YAO Jiankang" To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" , "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" References: <2C718E921C864A360E35E758@htat43p-no.corp.google.com> <385480203.11515@cnnic.cn> Subject: Re: Condorcet voting (Re: [EAI] Please - Don't state preferences yet!) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:35:52 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 Cc: Charles Lindsey , IMA X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1854415722==" Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --===============1854415722== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIlN0ZXBoYW5lIEJvcnR6bWV5 ZXIiIDxib3J0em1leWVyQG5pYy5mcj4NClRvOiAiSGFyYWxkIFR2ZWl0IEFsdmVzdHJhbmQiIDxo YXJhbGRAYWx2ZXN0cmFuZC5ubz4NCkNjOiAiQ2hhcmxlcyBMaW5kc2V5IiA8Y2hsQGNsZXJldy5t YW4uYWMudWs+OyAiSU1BIiA8aW1hQGlldGYub3JnPg0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBKdWx5IDI3LCAy MDA3IDM6NTggQU0NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBDb25kb3JjZXQgdm90aW5nIChSZTogW0VBSV0gUGxl YXNlIC0gRG9uJ3Qgc3RhdGUgcHJlZmVyZW5jZXMgeWV0ISkNCg0KDQo+IE9uIFRodSwgSnVsIDI2 LCAyMDA3IGF0IDAyOjIzOjQyUE0gLTA1MDAsDQo+IEhhcmFsZCBUdmVpdCBBbHZlc3RyYW5kIDxo YXJhbGRAYWx2ZXN0cmFuZC5ubz4gd3JvdGUgDQo+IGEgbWVzc2FnZSBvZiAyOSBsaW5lcyB3aGlj aCBzYWlkOg0KPiANCj4+IENoYXJsZXMsIHlvdSBtZW50aW9uZWQgaGF2aW5nIHNvZnR3YXJlIGF2 YWlsYWJsZSAtIGNhbiB5b3Ugb2ZmZXIgdG8NCj4+IHJ1biB0aGUgY291bnRpbmcgZm9yIHRoaXMg cGFydGljdWxhciB2b3RlPw0KPiANCj4gQW5vdGhlciBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZSBpcyB0byB1c2UgYW4g b25saW5lIHNlcnZpY2U6DQo+IA0KPiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNzLmNvcm5lbGwuZWR1L2FuZHJ1L2Np dnMuaHRtbA0KDQpJIGFwcHJlY2lhdGUgaXQgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jcy5jb3JuZWxsLmVkdS9hbmRy dS9jaXZzLmh0bWwuIEl0IGlzIHBlcmZlY3QuDQoNClRoYW5rcyBhIGxvdCBmb3IgU3RlcGhhbmUg aW50cm9kdWNpbmcgc3VjaCBwZXJmZWN0IHdlYnNpdGUuDQoNCkl0IGlzIGJldHRlciB0aGF0IGxl dCB1cyBoYXZlIGEgdHJ5LiBpdCBpcyBiZXR0ZXIgdGhhbiBmbGljayBhIGNvaW4uDQoNCg0KWUFP IEppYW5rYW5nDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0Kb25lIGV4YW1wbGUgaXMgdGhlIHJlc3Vs dCBvZiBjb25kb3JjZXQgdm90aW5nIHJlc3VsdCBvZiBEZW1vY3JhdGljIFByZXNpZGVudGlhbCBD YW5kaWRhdGVzIDIwMDgNCg0KDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNzLmNvcm5lbGwuZWR1L3c4L35hbmRydS9j Z2ktcGVybC9jaXZzL3Jlc3VsdHMucGw/aWQ9RV9hYmU0YWFiZjQ5YTIxN2U2DQoNCkVsZWN0aW9u IGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uDQpSYW5rIHRoZSBmb2xsb3dpbmcgY2FuZGlkYXRlcyBhcyBjaG9pY2VzIGZv ciBQcmVzaWRlbnQgb2YgdGhlIFVuaXRlZCBTdGF0ZXMuDQoNClJhbmtpbmcgb2YgdGhlIGNob2lj ZXMNCiAgICAgIDEuIEFsIEdvcmUgIChDb25kb3JjZXQgd2lubmVyOiB3aW5zIGNvbnRlc3RzIHdp dGggYWxsIG90aGVyIGNob2ljZXMpIA0KICAgICAgMi4gQmFyYWNrIE9iYW1hICBsb3NlcyB0byBB bCBHb3JlIGJ5IDUtNCANCiAgICAgIDMuIEpvaG4gRWR3YXJkcyAgbG9zZXMgdG8gQWwgR29yZSBi eSA2LTIsIGxvc2VzIHRvIEJhcmFjayBPYmFtYSBieSA4LTEgDQogICAgICA0LiBCaWxsIFJpY2hh cmRzb24gIGxvc2VzIHRvIEFsIEdvcmUgYnkgNS0xLCBsb3NlcyB0byBKb2huIEVkd2FyZHMgYnkg My0yIA0KICAgICAgNS4gSGlsbGFyeSBDbGludG9uICBsb3NlcyB0byBBbCBHb3JlIGJ5IDktMiwg bG9zZXMgdG8gQmlsbCBSaWNoYXJkc29uIGJ5IDQtMyANCiAgICAgIDYuIFdlc2xleSBDbGFyayAg bG9zZXMgdG8gQWwgR29yZSBieSA3LTAsIGxvc2VzIHRvIEhpbGxhcnkgQ2xpbnRvbiBieSA1LTMg DQogICAgICA3LiBKb2UgQmlkZW4gIGxvc2VzIHRvIEFsIEdvcmUgYnkgNi0xLCBsb3NlcyB0byBX ZXNsZXkgQ2xhcmsgYnkgMy0xIA0KICAgICAgOC4gVGllZDoNCiAgICAgIE1pa2UgR3JhdmVsICBs b3NlcyB0byBBbCBHb3JlIGJ5IDUtMSwgbG9zZXMgdG8gSm9lIEJpZGVuIGJ5IDMtMQ0KICAgICAg RGVubmlzIEt1Y2luaWNoICBsb3NlcyB0byBBbCBHb3JlIGJ5IDYtMSwgbG9zZXMgdG8gSm9lIEJp ZGVuIGJ5IDQtMyANCiAgICAgIDEwLiBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBEb2RkICBsb3NlcyB0byBBbCBHb3Jl IGJ5IDYtMSwgbG9zZXMgdG8gTWlrZSBHcmF2ZWwgYnkgMy0yIA0KICAgICAgMTEuIHRoZSBSZXB1 YmxpY2FuIG5vbWluZWUgIGxvc2VzIHRvIEFsIEdvcmUgYnkgOC0xLCBsb3NlcyB0byBDaHJpc3Rv cGhlciBEb2RkIGJ5IDYtMSANCg0KDQoNCj4gDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBJTUEgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IElNQUBpZXRm Lm9yZw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dzEuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9pbWENCj4= --===============1854415722== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --===============1854415722==-- From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 01 15:56:28 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKIy-0008Rc-DE; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:56:24 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKIx-0008Id-0Y for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:56:23 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKIw-0008Cg-HS for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:56:22 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.127]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGKIu-0000Pi-Pn for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:56:22 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3^clerew*man^ac^uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46b0e563.b551.9f for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:56:19 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l71JuHBP013367 for ; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:56:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:56:16 +0100 To: IMA Subject: Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-04 References: <20070731.192228.25149676.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20070731.192228.25149676.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a492040269d440726bfd84680622cee7 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:22:28 +0100, wrote: > Thank you very much for your comments. > >> From: "Charles Lindsey" >> Sorr >> > 4. SMTP Downgrading >> > MTA replaces non-ASCII mail address with specified alternative US- >> > ASCII address when downgrading. Before replacing, decode the ALT- >> > ADDRESS parameter value because it is encoded as xtest [RFC3461]. >> >> Eh? That last sentence only applies to an ORCPT parameter, I think. > > smtpext-07 section 2.4 says: > ALT-ADDRESS-parameter="ALT-ADDRESS=" ALT-ADDRESS-esmtp-value > ALT-ADDRESS-esmtp-value=xtext Hmmm! When did we decide that - I had not spotted it, though it seems to have changed between March and April this year? What was the reason (I don't necessarily object, but I would like to understand it). >> > 5. Email header fields downgrading >> >> > o Downgrading Address header fields >> > From: >> > Sender: >> > Reply-To: >> > To: >> > Cc: >> > Bcc: >> > Resent-From: >> > Resent-Sender: >> > Resent-To: >> > Resent-Cc: >> >> But that is only the present list. Surely the process you describe MAY >> also >> be used for any header defined in the future which contains an >> >> etc. > > It is true but currently supported header fields list is necessary. Yes, but I see no reason why future headers that include a should not be included. Your list if fine in order to make sure that all implementors cover at least those cases correctly. Perhaps: Any address header fields (i.e. those containing one or more s) that may be defined in future MAY be downgraded by applying the same process. And similar wording for other cases later on. > >> The upgrade/display mechanisms you describe in A1 and A2 would work >> just fine on such headers. The point is not whether we should allow any future Address header fields, but whether sensibly written MUAs would be able to upgrade them (i.e., if they are written to detect whether both a Downgraded header and a normal header of the same name are present, without checking it against any list, then they should be able to upgrade it without problem by decoding any RFC2047 in the Downgraded header, and discarding (or renaming) the other one. It is rather similar to what is in RFC2047, which claims to work on ANY unstructured header, or ANY structured header with s, s etc in it. In fact it should be easier than RFC2047, because 2047 requires you to consult the Delphic Oracle to discover whether the unrecognized header is structured or not. In practice, I suspect that the great majority of MUAs, if they see anything that is syntactically an encoded word (or even a poor attempt at an ) they simply decode it regardless. >> No, that is not right, becuase if there is both a and a >> you would then get: >> >> Internationalized Address "" >> Removed: ; >> >> which might not by a syntactically valid according to RFC2822. >> Well >> I am not quite sure about that, but in any case it would look better if >> you >> cuold arrange it as: >> >> Internationalized Address "" >> Removed: ; > > According to RFC2822, > > word = atom / quoted-string > phrase = 1*word / obs-phrase > display-name = phrase > group = display-name ":" [mailbox-list / CFWS] ";" [CFWS] > > RFC 2047 updates phrase > phrase = 1*( encoded-word / word ) > > "encoded-word word word encoded-word word:;" is allowed. Yes, my suggested wording should be extended to cover that case. In fact, all you need is a rule encoded-display-name = 1*( encoded-word / word ) > > And more, according to RFC 2047 section 5, > + An 'encoded-word' MUST NOT appear within a 'quoted-string'. > > So, I removed double quotes which enclose an encoded-word. Agreed. Essentially you are saying that the is to be encoded as a single , as opposed to which can be as complicated (and confusing :-) ) as you choose to make it. >> > Content-Type: >> > Content-Disposition: >> >> But again, this applies to ANY header that contains s as >> defined in RFC2045. ... And this time that should be no problem, because there is no Downgraded header to worry about. and the result of the downgrading is automatically consistent with all existing standards. >> Here, however, you need to specify how to downgrade a message/utf8smtp, >> since there is a promise in section 4.6 of >> draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-06.txt >> that such a downgrading (to message/rfc822) would be defined here. >> >> Presumably this would involve the usual recursive descent through the >> message/utf8smtp, downgrading individual headers as described above, and >> applying Content-Transfer-Encodings to bodies, as needed. >> >> And, having done that, you could also say that downgraders MAY do the >> same >> thing to message/rfc822. Yes, I know we have forbidden these to contain >> any >> utf8smtp headers, but such "leaks" are surely going to happen, so being >> "liberal" here might undo some such blunders. > > This comment is not agreed in WG. OK, it is just a suggestion for the WG to consider. The first job is to get a proper description of how to downgrade a message/utf8smtp. But I suspect that once an implementor had implemented that correctly, it would only take half a line of extra code to do message/rfc822 as well. > > In my opinion, a rfc822 message which contains message/utf8smtpMIMEtype > part confronts 7bit transport, it may be encoded to BASE64 > and its MIME headers will be > Content-Type: message/utf8smtpMIMEtype; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > This rfc822 message is deliverable via 7bit transport. Yes, it breaks existing standards, but the WG has already decided to do that :-( . >> >A.2. Displaying technique 2 >> > + Remove the header field which is the same with the >> generated >> > ASCII only header from the header fields. If the headers >> > contain [RFC2047] encoded part, decode it before >> comparison. >> >> But that last sentence will not always work because, sometimes, the >> [RFC2047] encoded part might have been present before downgrading. And, >> in >> any case, you have to unfold before doing the comparison. > > It is a difficult problem. RFC 2047 encoding does not preserve a space > between words. it needs further consideration. I am pretty sure you are wrong there. Can you explain further? > >> >Appendix B. Examples >> >B.1. Downgrading example 1 >> > Result of the header downgrading. >> > Return-Path: >> >> It is customary to insert the Return-Path: at the _end_ of the headers. > > Some MTA insert the Return-Path: at the top of the headers. Indeed, but best to use the more common case in examples. >> The previous draft had a useful paragraph here about a MIME encapsulated >> subject header. Why has it been removed? > > Is the paragraph this? > > | And more, the body part contains UTF-8 message. "ascii user" needs > | to accept UTF-8 mail body and UTF-8 subject which is MIME encoded. > No, it was This downgraded message's header part contains ASCII characters only. But it still contains MIME encapsulated subject header which contains UTF-8 characters. And more, the body part contains UTF-8 message. "ascii user" needs to accept UTF-8 mail body and UTF-8 subject which -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 02 14:09:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGf7M-00077J-24; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:09:48 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IGf7K-00071l-VP for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:09:46 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGf7K-00071J-4s for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:09:46 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGf7J-0007ym-Cd for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:09:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755B92596DE; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:09:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01629-01; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:09:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.54] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BA8C2596C3; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 20:09:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46B21DE0.1020102@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 20:09:36 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060921) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey Subject: Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-04 References: <20070731.192228.25149676.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: IMA X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:22:28 +0100, wrote: > >> Thank you very much for your comments. >> >>> From: "Charles Lindsey" >>> Sorr >>> > 4. SMTP Downgrading >>> > MTA replaces non-ASCII mail address with specified alternative US- >>> > ASCII address when downgrading. Before replacing, decode the ALT- >>> > ADDRESS parameter value because it is encoded as xtest [RFC3461]. >>> >>> Eh? That last sentence only applies to an ORCPT parameter, I think. >> >> smtpext-07 section 2.4 says: >> ALT-ADDRESS-parameter="ALT-ADDRESS=" ALT-ADDRESS-esmtp-value >> ALT-ADDRESS-esmtp-value=xtext > > Hmmm! When did we decide that - I had not spotted it, though it seems > to have changed between March and April this year? What was the reason > (I don't necessarily object, but I would like to understand it). When we remembered that an ALT-ADDRESS is an RFC-822 address, and thus can contain spaces and other characters that mess with syntax if unencoded. Harald _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 03 06:46:23 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGufh-00012N-60; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:46:17 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IGuff-00012H-Qs for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:46:15 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGuff-000129-GB for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:46:15 -0400 Received: from send01.jprs.co.jp ([202.11.17.113]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGufe-00061f-Kl for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:46:15 -0400 Received: from send01.jprs.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by send01.jprs.co.jp (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.11) with SMTP id l73AjDwG024379; Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:45:25 +0900 (JST) Received: (from localhost [172.18.4.57]) by send01.jprs.co.jp (SMSSMTP 4.0.4.64) with SMTP id M2007080319451202186 ; Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:45:12 +0900 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:45:12 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20070803.194512.41655617.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> To: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Subject: Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-04 From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp In-Reply-To: References: <20070731.192228.25149676.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2.50 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 34d35111647d654d033d58d318c0d21a Cc: ima@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org > From: "Charles Lindsey" > >> > 5. Email header fields downgrading > >> But that is only the present list. Surely the process you describe MAY > >> also > >> be used for any header defined in the future which contains an > >> > >> etc. > > > > It is true but currently supported header fields list is necessary. > > Yes, but I see no reason why future headers that include a > should not be included. Your list if fine in order to make sure that all > implementors cover at least those cases correctly. Perhaps: > > Any address header fields (i.e. those containing one or more > s) > that may be defined in future MAY be downgraded by applying the same > process. > > And similar wording for other cases later on. OK, I now rewriting as 5. Email header fields downgrading , , , , MIME parameter downgrading definition 5.1. Each header fields downgrading header fields listing and refer each downgrading. requirements for future defined header fields may be useful. > >> The upgrade/display mechanisms you describe in A1 and A2 would work > >> just fine on such headers. > > The point is not whether we should allow any future Address header fields, > but whether sensibly written MUAs would be able to upgrade them (i.e., if > they are written to detect whether both a Downgraded header and a normal > header of the same name are present, without checking it against any list, > then they should be able to upgrade it without problem by decoding any > RFC2047 in the Downgraded header, and discarding (or renaming) the other > one. It is rather similar to what is in RFC2047, which claims to work on > ANY unstructured header, or ANY structured header with s, > s etc in it. In fact it should be easier than RFC2047, because > 2047 requires you to consult the Delphic Oracle to discover whether the > unrecognized header is structured or not. In practice, I suspect that the > great majority of MUAs, if they see anything that is syntactically an > encoded word (or even a poor attempt at an ) they simply > decode it regardless. The upgrade/display mechanism only helps recipients to recognize the original header fields. > > In my opinion, a rfc822 message which contains message/utf8smtpMIMEtype > > part confronts 7bit transport, it may be encoded to BASE64 > > and its MIME headers will be > > Content-Type: message/utf8smtpMIMEtype; charset="UTF-8" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > > > This rfc822 message is deliverable via 7bit transport. > > Yes, it breaks existing standards, but the WG has already decided to do > that :-( . Which standards? > >> >Appendix B. Examples > >> >B.1. Downgrading example 1 > >> > Result of the header downgrading. > >> > Return-Path: > >> > >> It is customary to insert the Return-Path: at the _end_ of the headers. > > > > Some MTA insert the Return-Path: at the top of the headers. > > Indeed, but best to use the more common case in examples. > > >> The previous draft had a useful paragraph here about a MIME encapsulated > >> subject header. Why has it been removed? > > > > Is the paragraph this? > > > > | And more, the body part contains UTF-8 message. "ascii user" needs > > | to accept UTF-8 mail body and UTF-8 subject which is MIME encoded. > > > > No, it was > > This downgraded message's header part contains ASCII characters only. > But it still contains MIME encapsulated subject header which contains > UTF-8 characters. And more, the body part contains UTF-8 message. > "ascii user" needs to accept UTF-8 mail body and UTF-8 subject which OK, the same part. I added it in security consideration section. -- Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 14:18:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL0yI-0006wi-FE; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:18:26 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IL0yH-0006wb-JU for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:18:25 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL0yH-0006wS-90 for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:18:25 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL0yG-0005pz-M1 for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:18:25 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC75A2580D1 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:18:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19511-07 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:18:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C602B2580D0 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:18:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:16:48 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: EAI WG Message-ID: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Subject: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Hello folks, after the discussions both on- and off-list after Chicago, we seem to have reached the following conclusions: - In the list of MIME types, there are people who see actual technical issues with the MIME types - some are issues of style ("we don't do things that way"), others are issues of perception ("that will make the thing look silly in 5 years"), but they are very real issues that we should consider carefully. - In the IETF tradition, we don't do voting - we do do opinion polls, and even allow close calls when it is more important to draw a conclusion than which one is chosen - but we never do anonymous polls. People are expected to stand for their opinions. - Documented technical issues, where there's consensus that the issue is adequately described and merits consideration, always overrule opinions. Based on this background, the process we will follow is as follows: - FIRST, we need to have documented the issues perceived with the MIME type choice. I'm asking people to do that via mail to the mailing list, between now and FRIDAY, AUGUST 17. - On FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, I will send out a message announcing the poll. This will ask you to rank *all* the alternatives for MIME type, reflecting your opinion of the technical issues raised on the list - that is, if you think an issue is very important, you put *all* the choices that are on one side of the issue first, and *all* the choices that are on the other side last. - On FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, at 0800 GMT, the poll closes. (This chair will be away over the weekend, so the final result is unlikely to be announced until late the week after. But a week should be long enough for people to make up their minds.) The result will consist of the "best" choice according to a Condorcet ranking of the preferences, with a Schultze tie-breaker if necessary, and will include the complete record of who-said-what (no secret ballot). - If the result is acceptable to the WG, we're done. If not, we figure out some other way. Seems OK? Harald Alvestrand _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 14:39:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL1If-0004Tf-3c; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:39:29 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IL1Ie-0004TZ-0T for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:39:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL1Id-0004TR-MG for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:39:27 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL1Ib-0002i6-Ov for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:39:27 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17CDE2580D1 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:39:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20232-02 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:39:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC582580D0 for ; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:39:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:37:42 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: EAI WG Message-ID: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="==========1524C84BC37F2B547D0F==========" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b8f3559805f7873076212d6f63ee803e Subject: [EAI] Minutes from Chicago - first draft X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --==========1524C84BC37F2B547D0F========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for these very well-written minutes. Comments ASAP, please! Harald Alvestrand --==========1524C84BC37F2B547D0F========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="Chicago-wg-mins-pub-20070726.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Chicago-wg-mins-pub-20070726.txt"; size=6725 Minutes from the EAI working group Chicago, IL, USA 2007-07-26 1. Agenda bashing, etc: Nothing to report. 2. Status report: a. RFC 4952 published 2007-07-26. (Jubilation) b. SMTP believed to be ready except for MIME type choice. c. UTF8HDR has open issues, but believed to be ready except for MIME type choice. d. DSN is a dependency with issues. e. DOWNGRADE is in a reasonable state, but there are issues to discuss (in particular, "unknown header" handling, multiple Downgrade: headers, and downgraded no-Alt cases) f. Other drafts are dependent on completion of core. Remark (John Klensin): There were late comments on the framework document that suggested it could be more clear. The design team is aware of these, and will be incorporated in later revisions; but if you had comments or think the document as published is not good, send comments _now_. 3. SMTP a. List of issues closed. A question was put to the room: Does anyone object to these issues being regarded as resolved? There was no response. b. Unresolved issues requested. There was no response from the room. A question was put to the room: How many people have read the document? About one half of the room responded that they had read it. A question was put to the room: Who believes this document is ready for Last Call? About one half the room indicated agreement. A question was put to the room: Who believes this document is not ready for Last Call? Nobody responded. 4. UTF8HDR a. The Chair listed the issues closed. A question was put to the room: Does anyone object to considering these issues closed? There was no disagreement expressed. b. The remaining issue is issue 1485: body part for UTF8SMTP. A question was put to the room: Are there any other issues for this document? There were no additional issues raised. A question was put to the room: How many people have read the document? There were approximately 10 people responding. A question was put to the room: Once the MIME type is selected, is this document ready for Last Call? Nobody objected. John Klensin made a remark that it would be worrisome if this document were Last Called prior to the DSN document; the Chair replied that they would be Last Called together, because there is a normative dependency between them. c. MIME type selection [minute note: out of order from slides; the MIME type selection discussion happened before DSN discussion]. The suggestion from the Chair is that there are some bad options that have been eliminated, but that there is nevertheless not a remaining clear winner. The issue is that the WG needs to pick -- not design -- a method. Several methods suggested. John Klensin remarked that it is important to find "least liked" options, but that nobody has ever died because of a bad decision on similar topics. The Chair asked John Klensin to send an outline to the list of what "very bad" options were, and Klensin agreed. A coin toss established the Condorcet method as the way by which the choice would be made. 5. DSN open issues: report by Alexey Melnikov a. Issue 1 is just MIME type issue. See above. b. If DSN cannot be delivered on the next hop, then what? there are three options: 7 bit, downgrade, or discard. Eric Allman observed that it is important not to make downgrade an implicit requirement, because it's possible not all implementations will do downgrade. Some remarks to the effect that detailed design in the meeting is not a good idea. After considerable discussion, the Chair asked for a hum on the suggestion that downgrading was off the table, but that some versions of encoding are possible. There was a noticeable response in favour, and silence opposed. 6. Downgrade unresolved issues a. Chair asked how many had read the latest version? There were not many indicating having read. b. There remains an issue with UTF8 addresses with no alternate. There were previous suggestions merely to bounce the mail, but that seemed unsatisfactory, which is why there has been a suggestion for group syntax. The editor asked for feedback. General sense seemed to be that MUAs would not mishandle empty groups, and that the important thing was not to require too complete behaviour lest the feature be completely unimplemented. c. Unknown header fields discussion. There seem to be two options: either a field is processed as Downgrade: [old field], or it gets a special Downgraded-* prefix for every field. The room seemed to converge on documenting the problem and moving on, but no clear statement seemed to garner clear support. the Area Director pointed out that, to the extent this issue impinged upon DKIM, it would need to be addressed, though he did not have a recommendation on how to proceed. The Chair observed that Downgrade: fieldname: value received no remarks in favour, but Downgrade-fieldname: value was preferred by 7 participants. 7. POP: Randall Gellens a. Some meeting participants indicated they'd read the document recently. b. It appears that a full MIME parser is required in POP servers depending on which commands the client has issued (and whether the message is 7 bit or has been downgraded). A large number of slimy, worm-like issues are under this rock. Discussion needs to go to the list. 8. Mailinglist a. Nobody replies to question to the room: Who has read the latest version? b. A number of issues outlined, with not much discussion. Must go to list. 9. Working Group timeline a. The Chair plans to issue a 2-week Working Group Last Call on SMTP, UTF8, and DSN in August. If that goes well, it should be possible to go to the IESG in September. WGLC for Downgrade in September, going to the IESG in October. Then remaining additional drafts can be discussed in the December meeting in Vancouver. b. Given that the entire work is to be Experimental, how can the results of the experiment be collected, and how can the results be documented? 10. Closing a. Actions to be taken: MIME decision ASAP, fix drafts after that in August, and WGLC after that. b. Other business? None. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Sullivan --==========1524C84BC37F2B547D0F========== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --==========1524C84BC37F2B547D0F==========-- From ima-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 21:14:09 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7SY-0001E9-Ph; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:14:06 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7SX-0001E4-NN for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:14:05 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7SX-0001Du-CJ for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:14:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.cnnic.cn ([159.226.7.146] helo=cnnic.cn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7SU-00018C-Ds for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:14:03 -0400 Received: (eyou send program); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:13:58 +0800 Message-ID: <387140438.02261@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO yaojk) (218.241.111.35) by 159.226.7.146 with SMTP; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:13:58 +0800 Message-ID: <015401c7ded9$8d05de30$236ff1da@yaojk> From: "YAO Jiankang" To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" , "EAI WG" References: <387115531.00632@cnnic.cn> Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:13:55 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1701274583==" Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --===============1701274583== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 DQotLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlIC0tLS0tIA0KRnJvbTogIkhhcmFsZCBUdmVpdCBBbHZl c3RyYW5kIiA8aGFyYWxkQGFsdmVzdHJhbmQubm8+DQpUbzogIkVBSSBXRyIgPGltYUBpZXRmLm9y Zz4NClNlbnQ6IFdlZG5lc2RheSwgQXVndXN0IDE1LCAyMDA3IDI6MTYgQU0NClN1YmplY3Q6IFtF QUldIFBvbGwgZm9yIE1JTUUgdHlwZSAtIHJldmlzZWQgc2NoZWR1bGUgYW5kIGRldGFpbHMNCg0K DQo+IEhlbGxvIGZvbGtzLA0KPiANCj4gYWZ0ZXIgdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb25zIGJvdGggb24tIGFu ZCBvZmYtbGlzdCBhZnRlciBDaGljYWdvLCB3ZSBzZWVtIHRvIGhhdmUgDQo+IHJlYWNoZWQgdGhl IGZvbGxvd2luZyBjb25jbHVzaW9uczoNCj4gDQo+IC0gSW4gdGhlIGxpc3Qgb2YgTUlNRSB0eXBl cywgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHBlb3BsZSB3aG8gc2VlIGFjdHVhbCB0ZWNobmljYWwgDQo+IGlzc3VlcyB3 aXRoIHRoZSBNSU1FIHR5cGVzIC0gc29tZSBhcmUgaXNzdWVzIG9mIHN0eWxlICgid2UgZG9uJ3Qg ZG8gdGhpbmdzIA0KPiB0aGF0IHdheSIpLCBvdGhlcnMgYXJlIGlzc3VlcyBvZiBwZXJjZXB0aW9u ICgidGhhdCB3aWxsIG1ha2UgdGhlIHRoaW5nIGxvb2sgDQo+IHNpbGx5IGluIDUgeWVhcnMiKSwg YnV0IHRoZXkgYXJlIHZlcnkgcmVhbCBpc3N1ZXMgdGhhdCB3ZSBzaG91bGQgY29uc2lkZXIgDQo+ IGNhcmVmdWxseS4NCj4gDQo+IC0gSW4gdGhlIElFVEYgdHJhZGl0aW9uLCB3ZSBkb24ndCBkbyB2 b3RpbmcgLSB3ZSBkbyBkbyBvcGluaW9uIHBvbGxzLCBhbmQgDQo+IGV2ZW4gYWxsb3cgY2xvc2Ug Y2FsbHMgd2hlbiBpdCBpcyBtb3JlIGltcG9ydGFudCB0byBkcmF3IGEgY29uY2x1c2lvbiB0aGFu IA0KPiB3aGljaCBvbmUgaXMgY2hvc2VuIC0gYnV0IHdlIG5ldmVyIGRvIGFub255bW91cyBwb2xs cy4gUGVvcGxlIGFyZSBleHBlY3RlZCANCj4gdG8gc3RhbmQgZm9yIHRoZWlyIG9waW5pb25zLg0K PiANCj4gLSBEb2N1bWVudGVkIHRlY2huaWNhbCBpc3N1ZXMsIHdoZXJlIHRoZXJlJ3MgY29uc2Vu c3VzIHRoYXQgdGhlIGlzc3VlIGlzIA0KPiBhZGVxdWF0ZWx5IGRlc2NyaWJlZCBhbmQgbWVyaXRz IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24sIGFsd2F5cyBvdmVycnVsZSBvcGluaW9ucy4NCj4gDQo+IEJhc2VkIG9u IHRoaXMgYmFja2dyb3VuZCwgdGhlIHByb2Nlc3Mgd2Ugd2lsbCBmb2xsb3cgaXMgYXMgZm9sbG93 czoNCj4gDQo+IC0gRklSU1QsIHdlIG5lZWQgdG8gaGF2ZSBkb2N1bWVudGVkIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMg cGVyY2VpdmVkIHdpdGggdGhlIE1JTUUgdHlwZSANCj4gY2hvaWNlLiBJJ20gYXNraW5nIHBlb3Bs ZSB0byBkbyB0aGF0IHZpYSBtYWlsIHRvIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QsIGJldHdlZW4gDQo+IG5v dyBhbmQgRlJJREFZLCBBVUdVU1QgMTcuDQo+IA0KPiAtIE9uIEZSSURBWSwgQVVHVVNUIDE3LCBJ IHdpbGwgc2VuZCBvdXQgYSBtZXNzYWdlIGFubm91bmNpbmcgdGhlIHBvbGwuIFRoaXMgDQo+IHdp bGwgYXNrIHlvdSB0byByYW5rICphbGwqIHRoZSBhbHRlcm5hdGl2ZXMgZm9yIE1JTUUgdHlwZSwg cmVmbGVjdGluZyB5b3VyIA0KPiBvcGluaW9uIG9mIHRoZSB0ZWNobmljYWwgaXNzdWVzIHJhaXNl ZCBvbiB0aGUgbGlzdCAtIHRoYXQgaXMsIGlmIHlvdSB0aGluayANCj4gYW4gaXNzdWUgaXMgdmVy eSBpbXBvcnRhbnQsIHlvdSBwdXQgKmFsbCogdGhlIGNob2ljZXMgdGhhdCBhcmUgb24gb25lIHNp ZGUgDQo+IG9mIHRoZSBpc3N1ZSBmaXJzdCwgYW5kICphbGwqIHRoZSBjaG9pY2VzIHRoYXQgYXJl IG9uIHRoZSBvdGhlciBzaWRlIGxhc3QuDQo+IA0KPiAtIE9uIEZSSURBWSwgQVVHVVNUIDI0LCBh dCAwODAwIEdNVCwgdGhlIHBvbGwgY2xvc2VzLiAoVGhpcyBjaGFpciB3aWxsIGJlIA0KPiBhd2F5 IG92ZXIgdGhlIHdlZWtlbmQsIHNvIHRoZSBmaW5hbCByZXN1bHQgaXMgdW5saWtlbHkgdG8gYmUg YW5ub3VuY2VkIA0KPiB1bnRpbCBsYXRlIHRoZSB3ZWVrIGFmdGVyLiBCdXQgYSB3ZWVrIHNob3Vs ZCBiZSBsb25nIGVub3VnaCBmb3IgcGVvcGxlIHRvIA0KPiBtYWtlIHVwIHRoZWlyIG1pbmRzLikN Cj4gVGhlIHJlc3VsdCB3aWxsIGNvbnNpc3Qgb2YgdGhlICJiZXN0IiBjaG9pY2UgYWNjb3JkaW5n IHRvIGEgQ29uZG9yY2V0IA0KPiByYW5raW5nIG9mIHRoZSBwcmVmZXJlbmNlcywgd2l0aCBhIFNj aHVsdHplIHRpZS1icmVha2VyIGlmIG5lY2Vzc2FyeSwgYW5kIA0KPiB3aWxsIGluY2x1ZGUgdGhl IGNvbXBsZXRlIHJlY29yZCBvZiB3aG8tc2FpZC13aGF0IChubyBzZWNyZXQgYmFsbG90KS4NCj4g DQo+IC0gSWYgdGhlIHJlc3VsdCBpcyBhY2NlcHRhYmxlIHRvIHRoZSBXRywgd2UncmUgZG9uZS4g SWYgbm90LCB3ZSBmaWd1cmUgb3V0IA0KPiBzb21lIG90aGVyIHdheS4NCj4gDQo+IFNlZW1zIE9L Pw0KDQpHT09ELiBJdCBpcyBvayBmb3IgbWUuDQoNCllBTyBKaWFua2FuZw0KDQo+IA0KPiAgICAg ICAgICAgICBIYXJhbGQgQWx2ZXN0cmFuZA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4gDQo+IA0KPiANCj4g X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gSU1BIG1h aWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBJTUFAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cxLmlldGYub3JnL21haWxt YW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaW1hDQo+ --===============1701274583== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --===============1701274583==-- From ima-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 14 21:28:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7g1-0003lU-J1; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:28:01 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7fz-0003lM-N2 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:27:59 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7fz-0003lE-DV for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:27:59 -0400 Received: from twnic.net.tw ([211.72.210.250]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IL7fx-0005g5-QB for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:27:59 -0400 Received: from aabbeell (pc093.twnic.net.tw [211.72.211.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by twnic.net.tw (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7F1RfcC031509; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:27:44 +0800 Message-ID: <02b201c7dedb$cdfd92a0$c7d348d3@aabbeell> From: "abel" To: "YAO Jiankang" , "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" , "EAI WG" References: <387115531.00632@cnnic.cn> <387140438.02261@cnnic.cn> Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:30:00 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org > > - If the result is acceptable to the WG, we're done. If not, we figure out > > some other way. > > > > Seems OK? > > GOOD. It is ok for me. > > YAO Jiankang OK, and thanks for Harald _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 15 00:13:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILAG5-0007G9-07; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:25 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILAG3-0007Fa-5Q for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:23 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILAG2-0007F8-Cq; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:22 -0400 Received: from mail121.messagelabs.com ([216.82.241.195]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILAG0-000523-20; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:20 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-7.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1187151198!22404878!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.11; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 2919 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2007 04:13:18 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-7.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Aug 2007 04:13:18 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DIuN004781; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:18 -0400 Received: from mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com [144.155.224.139]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DEI0004472; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:15 -0400 Received: from sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DEd2001037; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:14 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (dns.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by mlph070.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7F4DCAU000524; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:13:12 -0400 Received: from [135.210.112.131] (unknown[135.210.112.131](misconfigured sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20070815041310gw10010gb2e> (Authid: tony); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:13:12 +0000 Message-ID: <46C27D22.2080103@att.com> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 00:12:18 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-822 mailing list References: <46A82184.7030200@att.com> In-Reply-To: <46A82184.7030200@att.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: LEMONADE WG , POP3 extensions mailing list , USEFOR WG , EAI WG , IMAP extensions mailing list , SMTP Interest Group , SIMPLE WG Subject: [EAI] Re: Mailing List Last Call for 2822 update internet-draft X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org The mailing list last call for the 2822 update is now over. I believe we have mailing list consensus on the issues that have been raised during the last call. After an updated draft is posted by Pete, we'll be moving the draft forward to IETF last call. Tony Tony Hansen wrote: > There have been some comments on draft-resnick-2822upd-* but they have > dwindled down to none. > > This is a "formal" Mailing List Last Call on > draft-resnick-2822upd-02.txt. The last call will last for two weeks > time, ending on August 10, 2007. > > The document will be discussed on the 822 mailing list, > . Please send your comments there. _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 15 08:08:38 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILHfx-00081t-FB; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:08:37 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILHfw-00081o-S3 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:08:36 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILHfw-00081f-2f for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:08:36 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.125]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILHfv-0000U9-2Q for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:08:35 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3^clerew&man^ac$uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46c2ecc0.e3bd.166 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:08:32 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l7FC8W6W009170 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:08:33 +0100 (BST) To: IMA Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:08:31 +0100 From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:16:48 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > Hello folks, > > after the discussions both on- and off-list after Chicago, we seem to > have reached the following conclusions: > > - In the list of MIME types, there are people who see actual technical > issues with the MIME types - some are issues of style ("we don't do > things that way"), others are issues of perception ("that will make the > thing look silly in 5 years"), but they are very real issues that we > should consider carefully. I take it this refers to the naming of what has hitherto been known as message/utf8smtp, for which purpose the proposed procedure and poll seem fine. And also its method of downgrade needs to get covered in the downgrade draft. As you know, I am unhappy about the decision to have such a new message type in the first place, but that is a separate matter which will likely come up again in IETF Last Call. I have one further issue related to MIME types. In the current DSN, where only the headers are to be returned, the type used in text/rfc822-headers (which is required to be in pure ASCII, of course). In the proposed UTF-8 DSN that type becomes message/utf-8-headers whereas, for consistency with the previous practice, one would have expected it to be text/utf-8-headers. So why the change? Downgrading of message/* types is messy (especially it it involves using encodings such as Q-P or Base64 which is not supposed to happen, whereas downgrading of text/* types is a well understood practice, using Q-P or Base64 as needed). Existing agents would automatically apply that encoding to any text type without looking any further. So why not simply use text/utf-8-headers for this job, probably with a charset=utf-8 parameter? Indeed, you might even get away with just adding a charset parameter to the existing text/rfc822-headers type - I suspect many current MUAs would display that correctly without even realizing they were doing anything unusual; but that might be considered a step too far. Perhaps this needs a new Issue number. -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 15 09:18:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILIl6-0003TV-4G; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:18:00 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILIl4-0003Su-Km for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:17:58 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILIl3-0003Rr-FJ for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:17:57 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.125]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILIl2-0002MI-9x for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:17:56 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster$pop3#clerew*man^ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46c2fd02.146d7.149 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:54 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l7FDHqnx013375 for ; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:53 +0100 (BST) To: IMA Subject: Re: [EAI] Minutes from Chicago - first draft References: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:17:51 +0100 From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 73734d43604d52d23b3eba644a169745 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:37:42 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for these very well-written minutes. > > Comments ASAP, please! OK, a few remarks. e. DOWNGRADE is in a reasonable state, but there are issues to discuss (in particular, "unknown header" handling, multiple Downgrade: headers, and downgraded no-Alt cases) Agreed. I raised a host of minor issues, but they are mostly accepted by the editor. Main thing needed is clear explanation of how to downgrade message/utf8smtp (and maybe even message/rfc822). b. If DSN cannot be delivered on the next hop, then what? there are three options: 7 bit, downgrade, or discard. Eric Allman observed that it is important not to make downgrade an implicit requirement, because it's possible not all implementations will do downgrade. Some remarks to the effect that detailed design in the meeting is not a good idea. After considerable discussion, the Chair asked for a hum on the suggestion that downgrading was off the table, but that some versions of encoding are possible. There was a noticeable response in favour, and silence opposed. But discard is also highly undesirable (especially as there is usually no Return-Path to send it back to). So downgrade it has to be. b. There remains an issue with UTF8 addresses with no alternate. There were previous suggestions merely to bounce the mail, but that seemed unsatisfactory, which is why there has been a suggestion for group syntax. The editor asked for feedback. General sense seemed to be that MUAs would not mishandle empty groups, and that the important thing was not to require too complete behaviour lest the feature be completely unimplemented. Yes, I like the group syntax idea, as in the latest downgrade draft. c. Unknown header fields discussion. There seem to be two options: either a field is processed as Downgrade: [old field], or it gets a special Downgraded-* prefix for every field. The room seemed to converge on documenting the problem and moving on, but no clear statement seemed to garner clear support. the Area Director pointed out that, to the extent this issue impinged upon DKIM, it would need to be addressed, though he did not have a recommendation on how to proceed. The Chair observed that Downgrade: fieldname: value received no remarks in favour, but Downgrade-fieldname: value was preferred by 7 participants. I much prefer 'Downgrade: fieldname: value', which is essentially what we have had in our drafts all along. I dislike the idea that new header field names can be invented 'on the fly', or that the form of a header field name should itself convey any semantic information. And all valid header field names are now supposed to be registered with IANA as soon as they are invented, which means that every existing header field name will now require a matching Downgrade-* to be registered for it. 9. Working Group timeline a. The Chair plans to issue a 2-week Working Group Last Call on SMTP, UTF8, and DSN in August. If that goes well, it should be possible to go to the IESG in September. WGLC for Downgrade in September, going to the IESG in October. Then remaining additional drafts can be discussed in the December meeting in Vancouver. The four 'core' documents UTF8, SMTP, DSN and DOWNGRADE are all so dependent on each other that it would be unwise to submit them to the IESG other than as one complete package to be considered together. I agree that the others could follow later. -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 15 10:21:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILJkJ-00060H-UH; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:15 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILJkJ-00060C-6X for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILJkI-000603-TD for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:14 -0400 Received: from vgateway.libertyrms.info ([207.219.45.62] helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILJkI-0006Aj-Ky for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:14 -0400 Received: from mac-andrew.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.3.198]) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1ILJkH-0005hy-Vb for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:13 -0400 Received: by mac-andrew.int.libertyrms.com (Postfix, from userid 1019) id 31770359C21; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:21:28 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] Minutes from Chicago - first draft Message-ID: <20070815142127.GE4820@afilias.info> References: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andrew@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:17:51PM +0100, Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:37:42 +0100, Harald Tveit Alvestrand > wrote: > > >Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for these very well-written minutes. > > > >Comments ASAP, please! > > OK, a few remarks. [. . .] Just to be clear, your remarks were on the _content_ of the minutes, and not the _accuracy_? If the latter, I don't think I understood what alterations you thought were needed. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada M2P 2A8 jabber: ajsaf@jabber.org +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 15 19:03:44 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILRtq-0001Dl-76; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:03:38 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILRto-0001Dc-5v for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:03:36 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILRtn-0001DT-RS for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:03:35 -0400 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILRtn-0004ZG-7X for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:03:35 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ILRtl-000Pyl-Os; Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:03:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:03:32 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Charles Lindsey , IMA Subject: Re: [EAI] Minutes from Chicago - first draft Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> 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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 15 August, 2007 14:17 +0100 Charles Lindsey wrote: >... > c. Unknown header fields discussion. There seem to be two > options: either a field is processed as Downgrade: [old > field], or > it gets a special Downgraded-* prefix for every field. The > room seemed to converge on documenting the problem and > moving on, > but no clear statement seemed to garner clear support. > the Area > Director pointed out that, to the extent this issue > impinged upon > DKIM, it would need to be addressed, though he did not > have a > recommendation on how to proceed. The Chair observed that > Downgrade: fieldname: value received no remarks in favour, > but > Downgrade-fieldname: value was preferred by 7 participants. > > I much prefer 'Downgrade: fieldname: value', which is > essentially what we have had in our drafts all along. I > dislike the idea that new header field names can be invented > 'on the fly', or that the form of a header field name should > itself convey any semantic information. And all valid header > field names are now supposed to be registered with IANA as > soon as they are invented, which means that every existing > header field name will now require a matching Downgrade-* to > be registered for it. Harald, I don't know if putting more of the discussion into the minutes is worthwhile, but, at least for Charles's information... Charles, just to explain the other point of view, there are a number of MUAs that don't like duplicate field names in the same set of headers. If one has a legacy MUA, "Downgrade: From:" is not different from "Downgrade: To:". It is, instead, either a pair of syntax errors ("field-name: atom: ..." is unusual although not actually prohibited) or two duplicate/redundant header fields named "Downgrade:". If the MUA canonicalizes the information, and many do, there is considerable risk that Downgrade: From: stuff Downgrade: To: otherstuff will either be turned into Downgrade: From: stuff [,] To: otherstuff or... all Downgrade: header fields will be dropped entirely, since there would be no rule for how to create the union (e.g., in the above, whether to put in that comma or not) or... the MUA will choose one of them to retain (most likely the first or last one) and discard all of the others. Since none of those are good options and not being able to predict which one would be chosen is not predictable across MUAs, some of us ended up being persuaded that "Downgrade-foo:" was the better choice despite sharing your misgivings and distaste about that form. john _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 16 02:41:50 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILZ3F-0005CD-N3; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:41:49 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1ILZ3E-0005C4-GT for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:41:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILZ3D-0005Bu-Ev for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:41:47 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ILZ3B-0004A2-Uz for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:41:47 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37AB32580D2; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:41:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18303-06; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:41:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.54] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20092580C8; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:41:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46C3F19E.5060907@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:41:34 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060921) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: [EAI] Minutes from Chicago - first draft References: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: Charles Lindsey , IMA X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org John C Klensin wrote: > --On Wednesday, 15 August, 2007 14:17 +0100 Charles Lindsey > wrote: > > >> . > Harald, I don't know if putting more of the discussion into the > minutes is worthwhile, but, at least for Charles's information... > If you think something was said at the meeting on this point, please suggest words so that we can get it into the minutes. I'd like to have the minutes reflect what was discussed - but we can't add that much explanation if that explanation didn't occur in the meeting. And Charles - if you want to discuss the issues rather than the minutes, CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE! Harald _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 08:57:52 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM1Oe-0006IW-1H; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:57:48 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IM1Oc-0006FN-BA for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:57:46 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM1Ob-0006Cs-V5 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:57:46 -0400 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM1Oa-0006bT-Sb for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:57:45 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IM1OZ-000Kny-Lw; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:57:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:57:42 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details Message-ID: <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> 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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f49c97ce49302a02285a2d36a99eef8c Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --On Tuesday, 14 August, 2007 20:16 +0200 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > Hello folks, > > after the discussions both on- and off-list after Chicago, we > seem to have reached the following conclusions: > > - In the list of MIME types, there are people who see actual > technical issues with the MIME types - some are issues of > style ("we don't do things that way"), others are issues of > perception ("that will make the thing look silly in 5 years"), > but they are very real issues that we should consider > carefully. > > - In the IETF tradition, we don't do voting - we do do opinion > polls, and even allow close calls when it is more important to > draw a conclusion than which one is chosen - but we never do > anonymous polls. People are expected to stand for their > opinions. > > - Documented technical issues, where there's consensus that > the issue is adequately described and merits consideration, > always overrule opinions. > > Based on this background, the process we will follow is as > follows: > > - FIRST, we need to have documented the issues perceived with > the MIME type choice. I'm asking people to do that via mail to > the mailing list, between now and FRIDAY, AUGUST 17. >... > Seems OK? Harald, While, as you know, I've still got some process concerns, this is probably close enough to reasonable that I can live with it if those who "vote" actually express preferences all the way down as you suggest. Consistent with your suggestions above, I see the names falling into three categories. Let me identify them and then go into details and examples below. (1) Names that will encourage incompatible and non-conforming extensions. (2) Names that do not appropriately describe what is going on and, more important, will cause long-term embarrassment by branding i18n mail permanently as a second-class add-on. We should be looking for names that identify email i18n as the mainstream for Internet mail, with systems that do not support it as slightly-retarded (obsolete) legacy implementations. (3) Names that are ok. As I tried to say in Chicago, I don't care how we pick among this: a preference ballot is fine, but some would be a coin-toss or more elaborate random-choice procedure. The first two categories are not mutually exclusive: some names fall into both of them. Details and examples: (1) In the MIME types definition, we were careful to make distinctions between character set identification (properly placed in "charset=" parameters when they are needed), encoding and on-the-wire compression methods (properly placed in Content-Transfer-Encoding (C-T-E)), and actual content types and name things accordingly. There are gray areas. For example, we have application/zip (or x-zip), rather than "Content-transfer-encoding: zip" but that was after a long discussion that hinged, in part, on the observations that "zip" was 8bit and hence would require additional encoding and that, while it might be reasonable for a final delivery MTA or the server-side of a mail access protocol to decode other C-T-Es, it was probably not reasonable for them to explode zip files. There is an additional problem for character set designations, which is that the use of one of them may encourage the use of others. For example message/utf8 (or message/utf8foo) might encourage the non-standard development and deployment of message/latin1 or message/8859-1 or message/EUC in areas where those codings are still more popular than Unicode in UTF-8 encoding. That reasoning and history make message/utf8 and, to a lesser degree, the strings that contain "utf8", substantively bad ideas, not just a matter of taste. (2) As I said in Chicago, I'd like people considering the various alternatives to think about how someone looking at these strings a decade from now, when (we assume) the UTF8SMTP extension and formats will be fully deployed, downgrading will (almost) never occur, and message/rfc822 will be largely history. message/rfc822 has caused confusion as to whether the messages conform to RFC822 and RFC2822 (or, soon, RFC2822bis). The IDN WG was promised that "Punycode" --neither the name nor the format-- would be seen outside the low-level technical environment, but it leaked in ways that have created confusion about just what the name refers to as well as some bad jokes about IETF disrespect for the non-English-speaking community. Names that contain RFC numbers (which seem to have dropped out during the initial poll) or present or proposed IETF WG names seem to me to be problematic in this regard. Those include message/eai, message/ima, and, to a lesser extent, strings containing "eai" or "ima". There is also some question about variations of "internationalized" such as message/i18n or strings containing "i18n": after all, long-term, what other sort of messages should the be that are not internationalized? Do we really want to give long-term special status to ASCII-only email and acknowledge that status by saying that this non-default form is somehow transformed or adapted to be i18n (my apologies non-native speakers of English, but there is a considerable semantic difference between "internationalized", implying that some action needed to be taken to get things that way from a normal base that presumably isn't internationalized and "international" which is just a statement of what something is)? Message/international and Message/global are much less problematic in this regard, at least to my sense of vocabulary. (3) This is the more or less neutral group. Of the proposals that are now on the table (per the discussion in Harald's note of Friday, 20 July, 2007 08:19 -0700), message/mail appears to be the neutral choice: at least we are clearly talking about mail messages, and not, e.g., IM messages or the like. message/email or message/imail (for Internet mail) seem equivalent. As discussed above, message/international or message/global are probably as good: a little redundant, but not harmful. Just my opinion, of course. john _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 12:21:56 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM4aC-0007kZ-LE; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:21:56 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IM4aA-0007kN-KD for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:21:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM4aA-0007kF-Af for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:21:54 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-3.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.127]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM4a7-0001SD-Fq for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:21:54 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster&pop3*clerew#man*ac^uk) by lon-mail-3.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46c5cb1d.17a1e.84 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:21:49 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l7HGLmj0003650 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:21:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:21:48 +0100 To: IMA References: <717C12F5FE5BA3FE860815E1@[192.168.1.119]> <51A39DAC216115AFAEB8678A@p3.JCK.COM> From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <51A39DAC216115AFAEB8678A@p3.JCK.COM> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 36b1f8810cb91289d885dc8ab4fc8172 Subject: [EAI] Re: Downgrade header (was Minutes from Chicago ) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:49:13 +0100, John C Klensin wrote: Oops! I replied to John only instead of to the list. So I am repeating the whole of his reply here, with my added comments. > --On Thursday, 16 August, 2007 13:10 +0100 Charles Lindsey > wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:03:32 +0100, John C Klensin >> wrote: >> >>> --On Wednesday, 15 August, 2007 14:17 +0100 Charles Lindsey >>> wrote: >> >>>> I much prefer 'Downgrade: fieldname: value', which is >>>> essentially what we have had in our drafts all along. I >>>> dislike the idea that new header field names can be invented >>>> 'on the fly', or that the form of a header field name should >>>> itself convey any semantic information. And all valid header >>>> field names are now supposed to be registered with IANA as >>>> soon as they are invented, which means that every existing >>>> header field name will now require a matching Downgrade-* to >>>> be registered for it. >> >>> Charles, just to explain the other point of view, there are a >>> number of MUAs that don't like duplicate field names in the >>> same set of headers. >> >> Well such MUAs are clearly non-compliant with the existing >> standard (e.g. RFC 2822 specifically allows multiple instances >> of several header, such as Comment, Keywords, Received, and >> all of Resent-*; and RFC 822 allowed even more). So I have >> little sympathy with a man who uses a non-compliant agent and >> then finds it does not work. > > If I recall, 2822 also provides a model for combining multiple > forward-pointing address headers and prohibits their use. It provides a method for a few specific headers, for use when interpreting obs-syntax only. Evidently some MUAs have implemented this (which is fine, and might even be useful when generating Reply-to-all and the like). But it seems some of them apply it to other headers for which it is inappropriate :-( . > Also, > among the above, Received and Resent-* are considered trace > headers and hence fall into a special category, leaving the > somewhat dubious for processing purposes and rarely-used Comment > and Keywords headers. The question is what happens with > something unknown and that is, well, unknown... not a violation > of the spec. There is also the little matter that 2822 doesn't > specify what MUAs do, only what the headers and format are. But there is nothing in RFC 2822 which says that multiple occurrences of the same header are disallowed, except for cases where it explicitly says so. Therefore they are allowed. The headers we are talking about here come under the classification of optional-headers so far as 2822 is concerned. > >>> ... If one has a legacy MUA, "Downgrade: From:" is >>> not different from "Downgrade: To:". It is, instead, either a >>> pair of syntax errors ("field-name: atom: ..." is unusual >>> although not actually prohibited) or two duplicate/redundant >>> header fields named "Downgrade:". If the MUA canonicalizes >>> the information, and many do, there is considerable risk that >>> Downgrade: From: stuff >>> Downgrade: To: otherstuff >>> will either be turned into >>> Downgrade: From: stuff [,] To: otherstuff >> >> Actually, there might be some mileage in making that the >> official form of the header. The only problem would be to find >> a delimiter sufficiently unlikely to occur within a header in >> its own right. Something like >> >> Downgrade: ---- >> From: stuff ---- >> To: stuff ---- >> >> where the first '----' defines the delimiter that will be used >> in the subsequent lines (a little bit like the 'boundary' in >> multiparts). > > You may think that is a good idea. If so, we will probably have > to agree to disagree. FWIW, note that we need to assume that > any MUA receiving a downgraded message will itself have never > heard of those headers -- in any form or syntax-- so that > syntactic tricks aren't going to help it much. There will be > exceptions, of course. An MUA which refuses to display an unknown header, even when the user requests to see "all headers", is severely broken. But any such agent that declines to show the "Downgrade:" header I have proposed would equally decline to show any of the "Downgrade-Foo" headers that you prefer. So that argument is neutral as between the two proposals. As to whether such an agent would be kind enough to display in decoded form any RFC 2047 stuff it encountered in such headers, that too would presumably happen, or not happen, under both proposals. It does not matter that such agents will not recognise delimeters such as "----". The most one can expect such agents to do is to display these headers in a form that the reader can read. Only agents extended following our drafts would be able to use those headers in order to do full upgrading (that would include extended POP and IMAP systems, of course). The only disadvantage I can see with my proposal is that the position of the original pre-downgrade headers in the header section will be lost, so the upgrade mechanism will not be able to reproduce the original headers in their original order. > >>> Since none of those are good options and not being able to >>> predict which one would be chosen is not predictable across >>> MUAs, some of us ended up being persuaded that >>> "Downgrade-foo:" was the better choice despite sharing your >>> misgivings and distaste about that form. >> >> My dislike of Downgrade-foo is less than my dislike of >> non-compliant systems, so count me still in favour of our >> current Downgrade header (unless my delimiter hack above can >> be made to work). > > You had best register this comment on-list. Telling me doesn't > help very much, especially since I was just trying to report on > the conversation in this subject in and around the meeting > rather than trying to strongly advocate a position. Indeed. That comment is now on-list, and hence also on-the-table. > > john > > > > -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 15:02:02 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM756-0000O7-TJ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:02:00 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IM755-0000Nq-Mk for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:01:59 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM755-0000Nf-D8 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:01:59 -0400 Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM753-0006sZ-TR for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:01:59 -0400 Received: from fe-amer-01.sun.com ([192.18.108.175]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l7HJ1vPI001554 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:01:57 GMT Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0JMX00501LPW4W00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Chris.Newman@Sun.COM) for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:01:57 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.1.21] ([10.1.110.5]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0JMX00LGSM76P600@mail-amer.sun.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:01:57 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:02:17 -0700 From: Chris Newman Subject: message/utf-8-headers (was Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details) In-reply-to: To: Charles Lindsey , IMA Message-id: <20D39C35A330B685493BCD43@[10.1.110.5]> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Charles Lindsey wrote on 8/15/07 13:08 +0100: > So why not simply use text/utf-8-headers for this job, probably with a > charset=utf-8 parameter? Indeed, you might even get away with just adding a > charset parameter to the existing text/rfc822-headers type - I suspect many > current MUAs would display that correctly without even realizing they were > doing anything unusual; but that might be considered a step too far. > > Perhaps this needs a new Issue number. With my former document author hat on, there were two reasons I switched to "message" from "text" for that media type. First, return-of-headers is primarily useful as a correlation mechanism. It's undesirable for a correlation mechanism to be transformed in a way that might break the correlation. Using a text/* type with a charset=* parameter invites such transformation of the charset and makes it unclear what's expected of a client that's doing correlation (e.g. would it have to support text/international-header for all the charsets mentioned in RFC 2049 for minimal MIME compliance?). Second, message headers are fundamentally content related to a "message". After discussing it with other MIME experts, we felt the name text/rfc822-headers was probably a design error and it should have been a message content type. So the change was deliberate on that front as well. The inconsistency between naming of the ASCII and international variants of this media type is unfortunate, but I felt it was the lesser of evils. I agree this should go on the issue list to gauge WG rough consensus on the topic. - Chris _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 15:07:16 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM7AB-0004iH-RZ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:07:15 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IM7AB-0004iC-8D for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:07:15 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM7AA-0004i3-T1 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:07:14 -0400 Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com ([192.18.98.36]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM7A9-00033s-BP for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:07:14 -0400 Received: from fe-amer-01.sun.com ([192.18.108.175]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id l7HJ7Cdq024004 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:07:12 GMT Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) id <0JMX00501LPW4W00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from Chris.Newman@Sun.COM) for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:07:12 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [10.0.1.21] ([10.1.110.5]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0JMX00LG3MFUPH00@mail-amer.sun.com>; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 13:07:12 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:07:29 -0700 From: Chris Newman Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details In-reply-to: <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> To: John C Klensin , Harald Tveit Alvestrand Message-id: <7F5E0A84F06FF5FB9BCA3A8A@[10.1.110.5]> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Mac OS X) Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0e9ebc0cbd700a87c0637ad0e2c91610 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org For completeness, let me attempt to summarize the three other naming issues I've heard discussed in this thread: 4. Using the name of a protocol ("SMTP") in a media type name when that media type is likely to be used outside that protocol more often than not (e.g., IMAP, POP, webmail, mail stores, MUAs) is misleading about the purpose of the media type. 5. The message/rfc822 media type is used for 7-bit news messages today and this is part of the original message/rfc822 definition. Just as it is desirable to have one compound type for all message objects that look like 7-bit header mail (to avoid lots of subtly different compound types to descend), it is also desirable to use one compound type for all message objects that look like utf-8 header email. As a result, the term "mail" is somewhat misleading about the scope of the media type. Of course, rfc822 is also misleading and we've lived with it. 6. Descriptiveness of name. It's desirable for the name to have some useful meaning to a non-technical user as MIME media types leak into user interfaces. I don't disagree with any of John's issues, but it's likely the relative weight I attach to these five naming issues is different from the relative weight John attaches to them. - Chris John C Klensin wrote on 8/17/07 8:57 -0400: > --On Tuesday, 14 August, 2007 20:16 +0200 Harald Tveit > Alvestrand wrote: > >> Hello folks, >> >> after the discussions both on- and off-list after Chicago, we >> seem to have reached the following conclusions: >> >> - In the list of MIME types, there are people who see actual >> technical issues with the MIME types - some are issues of >> style ("we don't do things that way"), others are issues of >> perception ("that will make the thing look silly in 5 years"), >> but they are very real issues that we should consider >> carefully. >> >> - In the IETF tradition, we don't do voting - we do do opinion >> polls, and even allow close calls when it is more important to >> draw a conclusion than which one is chosen - but we never do >> anonymous polls. People are expected to stand for their >> opinions. >> >> - Documented technical issues, where there's consensus that >> the issue is adequately described and merits consideration, >> always overrule opinions. >> >> Based on this background, the process we will follow is as >> follows: >> >> - FIRST, we need to have documented the issues perceived with >> the MIME type choice. I'm asking people to do that via mail to >> the mailing list, between now and FRIDAY, AUGUST 17. >> ... >> Seems OK? > > Harald, > > While, as you know, I've still got some process concerns, this > is probably close enough to reasonable that I can live with it > if those who "vote" actually express preferences all the way > down as you suggest. > > Consistent with your suggestions above, I see the names falling > into three categories. Let me identify them and then go into > details and examples below. > > (1) Names that will encourage incompatible and non-conforming > extensions. > > (2) Names that do not appropriately describe what is going on > and, more important, will cause long-term embarrassment by > branding i18n mail permanently as a second-class add-on. We > should be looking for names that identify email i18n as the > mainstream for Internet mail, with systems that do not support > it as slightly-retarded (obsolete) legacy implementations. > > (3) Names that are ok. As I tried to say in Chicago, I don't > care how we pick among this: a preference ballot is fine, but > some would be a coin-toss or more elaborate random-choice > procedure. > > The first two categories are not mutually exclusive: some names > fall into both of them. > > Details and examples: > > (1) In the MIME types definition, we were careful to make > distinctions between character set identification (properly > placed in "charset=" parameters when they are needed), encoding > and on-the-wire compression methods (properly placed in > Content-Transfer-Encoding (C-T-E)), and actual content types and > name things accordingly. There are gray areas. For example, we > have application/zip (or x-zip), rather than > "Content-transfer-encoding: zip" but that was after a long > discussion that hinged, in part, on the observations that "zip" > was 8bit and hence would require additional encoding and that, > while it might be reasonable for a final delivery MTA or the > server-side of a mail access protocol to decode other C-T-Es, it > was probably not reasonable for them to explode zip files. > > There is an additional problem for character set designations, > which is that the use of one of them may encourage the use of > others. For example message/utf8 (or message/utf8foo) might > encourage the non-standard development and deployment of > message/latin1 or message/8859-1 or message/EUC in areas where > those codings are still more popular than Unicode in UTF-8 > encoding. > > That reasoning and history make message/utf8 and, to a lesser > degree, the strings that contain "utf8", substantively bad > ideas, not just a matter of taste. > > > (2) As I said in Chicago, I'd like people considering the > various alternatives to think about how someone looking at these > strings a decade from now, when (we assume) the UTF8SMTP > extension and formats will be fully deployed, downgrading will > (almost) never occur, and message/rfc822 will be largely > history. message/rfc822 has caused confusion as to whether the > messages conform to RFC822 and RFC2822 (or, soon, RFC2822bis). > The IDN WG was promised that "Punycode" --neither the name nor > the format-- would be seen outside the low-level technical > environment, but it leaked in ways that have created confusion > about just what the name refers to as well as some bad jokes > about IETF disrespect for the non-English-speaking community. > > Names that contain RFC numbers (which seem to have dropped out > during the initial poll) or present or proposed IETF WG names > seem to me to be problematic in this regard. Those include > message/eai, message/ima, and, to a lesser extent, strings > containing "eai" or "ima". There is also some question about > variations of "internationalized" such as message/i18n or > strings containing "i18n": after all, long-term, what other sort > of messages should the be that are not internationalized? Do we > really want to give long-term special status to ASCII-only email > and acknowledge that status by saying that this non-default form > is somehow transformed or adapted to be i18n (my apologies > non-native speakers of English, but there is a considerable > semantic difference between "internationalized", implying that > some action needed to be taken to get things that way from a > normal base that presumably isn't internationalized and > "international" which is just a statement of what something is)? > Message/international and Message/global are much less > problematic in this regard, at least to my sense of vocabulary. > > (3) This is the more or less neutral group. Of the proposals > that are now on the table (per the discussion in Harald's note > of Friday, 20 July, 2007 08:19 -0700), message/mail appears to > be the neutral choice: at least we are clearly talking about > mail messages, and not, e.g., IM messages or the like. > message/email or message/imail (for Internet mail) seem > equivalent. As discussed above, message/international or > message/global are probably as good: a little redundant, but not > harmful. > > Just my opinion, of course. > > john > > > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 17 17:02:48 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM8xx-0002W2-W5; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:02:45 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IM8xw-0002Vw-H0 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:02:44 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM8xw-0002Vn-7A for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:02:44 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IM8xv-0006ic-RJ for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:02:44 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F272596C9 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:02:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15994-06 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:02:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.54] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1AD42580C5 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:02:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46C60CE1.7070907@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:02:25 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060921) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: EAI WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Subject: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Here is the promised poll of MIME types. Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS (for multi-place record-keeping). KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE INTACT (adding Re: at the beginning is Not A Problem). Please remember to fill in your preference on ALL the MIME types, by placing a number between the square brackets at the beginning of the line, using the numbers from 1 to 11. 1 is the type you would most like to see, while 11 is for the type you would least like to see. All the numbers should be different. The entries appear in alphabetical order. Please don't rearrange them. The poll closes on FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, at 0800 GMT. ====== POLL START ======= [ ] message/eai [ ] message/global [ ] message/i18n [ ] message/i18n-email [ ] message/ima [ ] message/international [ ] message/intl-email [ ] message/mail [ ] message/utf8-email [ ] message/utf8eai [ ] message/utf8smtp ======= POLL END ====== _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Sat Aug 18 12:16:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMQyG-0005bR-Ol; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:16 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IMQyE-0005bL-VX for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:14 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMQyE-0005bD-LO for ima@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:14 -0400 Received: from sceptre.pobox.com ([207.106.133.20]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMQyE-0007YC-6u for ima@ietf.org; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:14 -0400 Received: from sceptre (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sceptre.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D0D2F0; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MCQWP2 (ip72-197-112-82.sd.sd.cox.net [72.197.112.82]) by sceptre.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93CB57273C; Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:16:27 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 09:15:56 -0700 From: Bill McQuillan X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1268176806.20070818091556@pobox.com> To: IMA Discussion Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection In-Reply-To: <46C60CE1.7070907@alvestrand.no> References: <46C60CE1.7070907@alvestrand.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, 2007-08-17, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS (for multi-place > record-keeping). Would it be possible to provide those email addresses somewhere in the poll message? -- Bill McQuillan _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 19 19:34:27 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMuHm-00056G-LP; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:34:22 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IMuHl-000526-ML for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:34:21 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMuHl-000505-B7 for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:34:21 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMuHk-0004Rh-VJ for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:34:21 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE3E2596DB for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:34:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04793-04 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:34:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31E12596DA for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:34:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 01:34:14 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: EAI WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Subject: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong\(Sheldon\) Lee" List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org [Resend, now with reply-to set] Here is the promised poll of MIME types. Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS (for multi-place record-keeping): harald@alvestrand.no and lee@cnnic.cn. KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE INTACT (adding Re: at the beginning is Not A Problem). Please remember to fill in your preference on ALL the MIME types, by placing a number between the square brackets at the beginning of the line, using the numbers from 1 to 11. 1 is the type you would most like to see, while 11 is for the type you would least like to see. All the numbers should be different. The entries appear in alphabetical order. Please don't rearrange them. The poll closes on FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, at 0800 GMT. ====== POLL START ======= [ ] message/eai [ ] message/global [ ] message/i18n [ ] message/i18n-email [ ] message/ima [ ] message/international [ ] message/intl-email [ ] message/mail [ ] message/utf8-email [ ] message/utf8eai [ ] message/utf8smtp ======= POLL END ====== _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 19 22:49:29 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMxKY-0003GD-Qt; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:49:26 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IMxKX-0003G4-E4 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:49:25 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMxKX-0003Fk-3i for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:49:25 -0400 Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.194]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IMxKS-00013G-Lb for ima@ietf.org; Sun, 19 Aug 2007 22:49:21 -0400 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id l7K2nHLj005304 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:49:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.206.133) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 48e2_f17a96ea_4ec7_11dc_9314_0014221f2a2d; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:49:17 +0900 X-AuthUser: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:35239) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:46:31 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20070820114523.0a24fec0@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:47:44 +0900 To: harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong\(Sheldon\) Lee" , EAI WG From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection In-Reply-To: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org At 08:34 07/08/20, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >[Resend, now with reply-to set] > >Here is the promised poll of MIME types. >Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS (for multi-place >record-keeping): harald@alvestrand.no and lee@cnnic.cn. >KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE INTACT (adding Re: at the beginning is Not A Problem). > >Please remember to fill in your preference on ALL the MIME types, by >placing a number between the square brackets at the beginning of the >line, using the numbers from 1 to 11. 1 is the type >you would most like to see, while 11 is for the type you would least >like to see. All the numbers should be different. > >The entries appear in alphabetical order. Please don't rearrange them. > >The poll closes on FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, at 0800 GMT. > >====== POLL START ======= >[ 3] message/eai >[ 4] message/global >[ 6] message/i18n >[ 7] message/i18n-email >[ 2] message/ima >[ 5] message/international >[ 8] message/intl-email >[ 1] message/mail >[10] message/utf8-email >[ 9] message/utf8eai >[11] message/utf8smtp >======= POLL END ====== > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >IMA mailing list >IMA@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 20 09:42:25 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7WS-0005fX-NV; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:42:24 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7WR-0005eY-KG for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:42:23 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7WR-0005eP-9R for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:42:23 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.130]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7WQ-0007uo-Ay for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:42:22 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster#pop3^clerew^man#ac#uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46c99a3c.305.124 for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:42:20 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l7KDgJSg022951 for ; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:42:20 +0100 (BST) To: IMA Subject: Re: message/utf-8-headers (was Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details) References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> <20D39C35A330B685493BCD43@[10.1.110.5]> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:42:19 +0100 From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20D39C35A330B685493BCD43@[10.1.110.5]> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 20:02:17 +0100, Chris Newman wrote: > With my former document author hat on, there were two reasons I switched > to "message" from "text" for that media type. > > First, return-of-headers is primarily useful as a correlation > mechanism. It's undesirable for a correlation mechanism to be > transformed in a way that might break the correlation. Using a text/* > type with a charset=* parameter invites such transformation of the > charset and makes it unclear what's expected of a client that's doing > correlation (e.g. would it have to support text/international-header for > all the charsets mentioned in RFC 2049 for minimal MIME compliance?). OK, so omit the charset parameter, and state up-front that the charset MUST be utf-8. Or say that if charset is present it MUST be of the form charset=utf-8 (the only advantage of having a charset parameter at all is that some existing agents might be kind enough to act on it - but then DSNs will normally be sent to people with upgraded MUAs, even if some intermediate hop isn't). > > Second, message headers are fundamentally content related to a > "message". After discussing it with other MIME experts, we felt the name > text/rfc822-headers was probably a design error and it should have been > a message content type. So the change was deliberate on that front as > well. It was always am oddity that text/rfc822-headers was used originally, but now it is there noone can complain if the new DSNs use text/utf8-headers/whatever. The disadvantage of using message/rfc822-headers is that some agents will fail to handle it properly when downgrading for some non-8BITMIME systems (sendmail will just leave it as 8bit, for example). That is hardly robust. But every agent should be able to downgrade a text type in that situation. > I agree this should go on the issue list to gauge WG rough consensus on > the topic. +1 -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 20 09:48:08 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7c0-0000mw-2W; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:48:08 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7by-0000YT-7y for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:48:06 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7bx-0000Pf-QO for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:48:05 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-4.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.130]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN7bw-000868-R1 for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:48:05 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster^pop3^clerew$man&ac&uk) by lon-mail-4.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.243) id 46c99b84.13d2e.1e3; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:47:48 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l7KDlhlx023276; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:47:44 +0100 (BST) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:47:42 +0100 To: harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong(Sheldon) Lee" , "EAI WG" Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 00:34:14 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > [Resend, now with reply-to set] > > Here is the promised poll of MIME types. > Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS (for multi-place > record-keeping): harald@alvestrand.no and lee@cnnic.cn. > KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE INTACT (adding Re: at the beginning is Not A > Problem). > > Please remember to fill in your preference on ALL the MIME types, by > placing a number between the square brackets at the beginning of the > line, using the numbers from 1 to 11. 1 is the type > you would most like to see, while 11 is for the type you would least > like to see. All the numbers should be different. > > The entries appear in alphabetical order. Please don't rearrange them. > > The poll closes on FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, at 0800 GMT. > > ====== POLL START ======= > [10 ] message/eai > [ 6 ] message/global > [ 7 ] message/i18n > [ 2 ] message/i18n-email > [11 ] message/ima > [ 8 ] message/international > [ 1 ] message/intl-email > [ 5 ] message/mail > [ 3 ] message/utf8-email > [ 9 ] message/utf8eai > [ 4 ] message/utf8smtp > ======= POLL END ====== > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > > -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 20 11:33:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN9G9-00033O-KF; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:33:41 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IN9G8-000336-Ni for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:33:40 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN9G8-00032y-Dl for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:33:40 -0400 Received: from vgateway.libertyrms.info ([207.219.45.62] helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN9G6-0008Py-Cd for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:33:40 -0400 Received: from andrew-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.6] helo=trilby.local) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1IN9G5-0005Y3-Tg for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:33:38 -0400 Received: by trilby.latrantes.info (Postfix, from userid 1019) id 2E65735C5A5; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:34:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:34:04 -0400 From: Andrew Sullivan To: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: message/utf-8-headers (was Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details) Message-ID: <20070820153401.GF29374@afilias.info> References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> <20D39C35A330B685493BCD43@[10.1.110.5]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: andrew@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Andrew Sullivan List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Dear colleagues, On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 02:42:19PM +0100, Charles Lindsey wrote: > It was always am oddity that text/rfc822-headers was used originally, but > now it is there noone can complain if the new DSNs use > text/utf8-headers/whatever. The above strikes me as a strange argument. It suggests that, because some wart was selected once in the past, all future warts are automatically unobjectionable. Surely that's not something we believe, is it? Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada M2P 2A8 jabber: ajsaf@jabber.org +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Tue Aug 21 07:13:58 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INRgH-00043v-Ro; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:13:53 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1INRgG-00043l-32 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:13:52 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INRgF-00043d-OM for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:13:51 -0400 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([131.228.20.172] helo=mgw-ext13.nokia.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INRgF-0001mb-6S for ima@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 07:13:51 -0400 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext13.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id l7LBDRwu017342; Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:13:41 +0300 Received: from esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.143.33]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:13:21 +0300 Received: from esebe199.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.143]) by esebh103.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:13:20 +0300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 14:12:49 +0300 Message-ID: <4C38DC11F6B4FF4FAEA73E30DB5AA157F3C54A@esebe199.NOE.Nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Thread-Index: AcfiubOZ2Jao1JfXRgKWUCXwpGYXYwBKddOg References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> From: To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Aug 2007 11:13:20.0785 (UTC) FILETIME=[48449010:01C7E3E4] X-Nokia-AV: Clean X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]=20 >Sent: 20 August, 2007 02:34 >To: EAI WG >Subject: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection > >[Resend, now with reply-to set] > >Here is the promised poll of MIME types. >Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS (for multi-place >record-keeping): harald@alvestrand.no and lee@cnnic.cn. >KEEP THE SUBJECT LINE INTACT (adding Re: at the beginning is=20 >Not A Problem). > >Please remember to fill in your preference on ALL the MIME=20 >types, by placing a number between the square brackets at the=20 >beginning of the line, using the numbers from 1 to 11. 1 is=20 >the type you would most like to see, while 11 is for the type=20 >you would least like to see. All the numbers should be different. > >The entries appear in alphabetical order. Please don't rearrange them. > >The poll closes on FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, at 0800 GMT. > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D POLL START =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >[ 10 ] message/eai >[ 7 ] message/global >[ 8 ] message/i18n >[ 4 ] message/i18n-email >[ 9 ] message/ima >[ 1 ] message/international >[ 2 ] message/intl-email >[ 6 ] message/mail >[ 3 ] message/utf8-email >[ 11 ] message/utf8eai >[ 5 ] message/utf8smtp >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D POLL END =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >IMA mailing list >IMA@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Aug 22 21:37:34 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO1dZ-0001Ti-HQ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:29 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IO1dX-0001Td-UD for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO1dX-0001TV-Kd for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:27 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.234]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO1dX-0001id-D7 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:37:27 -0400 Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id h27so310220wxd for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:37:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=FUdHPo31q/RSuveUE1+VnM8gIddAPx0QVbCTma+JpHQRhNKOxQ9meBghx0s+JvtF6MseKOyuJp2f7f3e7otimCUO9e/XDLrE5ZL8G2zPcR1N/Uhyh7dYPjxpsJc2vDcvIzJkYwq+Jila16gxW78chJ3ftVR+0BBWMklSSw/6xwA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=d09yM3ghZJACcE/rjfKqjteXTIgKx9Xh8/fiQugs1P2pSCn5/TX+1MNbE5A08jPXvUpR6ZZXsLMwS8Ev8XoxDyr9e7xFyHYyU0DfyF37JqIIJiTTev0nl1TGRoOx95jIPdCdGM1G/gKaHF7JS70yI80iW/AznSCYHEmqaB5rroY= Received: by 10.70.32.2 with SMTP id f2mr2112172wxf.1187833046567; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.103.2 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:37:26 +0900 From: "Yangwoo Ko" To: harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong(Sheldon) Lee" Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection In-Reply-To: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 937d090f28e91c63 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1085653929==" Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --===============1085653929== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_99042_14517431.1187833046495" ------=_Part_99042_14517431.1187833046495 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline [ 10 ] message/eai [ 2 ] message/global [ 4 ] message/i18n [ 5 ] message/i18n-email [ 11 ] message/ima [ 3 ] message/international [ 6 ] message/intl-email [ 1 ] message/mail [ 7 ] message/utf8-email [ 9 ] message/utf8eai [ 8 ] message/utf8smtp ------=_Part_99042_14517431.1187833046495 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline [ 10 ] message/eai
[ 2 ] message/global
[ 4 ] message/i18n
[ 5 ] message/i18n-email
[ 11 ] message/ima
[ 3 ] message/international
[ 6 ] message/intl-email
[ 1 ] message/mail            
[ 7 ] message/utf8-email
[ 9 ] message/utf8eai
[ 8 ] message/utf8smtp
------=_Part_99042_14517431.1187833046495-- --===============1085653929== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --===============1085653929==-- From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 05:29:57 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO90m-0000xZ-5o; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:29:56 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IO90j-0000xH-UB for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:29:53 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO90j-0000x9-He for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:29:53 -0400 Received: from [159.226.7.151] (helo=cnnic.cn) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO90i-0000vi-Fi for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:29:53 -0400 Received: (eyou send program); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:29:47 +0800 Message-ID: <387861387.18829@cnnic.cn> Received: from 159.226.7.244 by mail.cnnic.cn with HTTP; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:29:47 +0800 X-WebMAIL-MUA: [159.226.7.244] From: "MAO Wei" To: harald@alvestrand.no, lee@cnnic.cn Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:29:47 +0800 X-Priority: 3 Subject: Re:[EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: ima@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: MAO Wei List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org ====== POLL START ======= [11] message/eai [1] message/global [6] message/i18n [5] message/i18n-email [10] message/ima [2] message/international [3] message/intl-email [4] message/mail [7] message/utf8-email [8] message/utf8eai [9] message/utf8smtp ======= POLL END ====== _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 05:55:43 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9Pi-0000Xk-JH; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:55:42 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9Ph-0000Xe-7z for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:55:41 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9Pg-0000XW-Q4 for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:55:40 -0400 Received: from rufus.isode.com ([62.3.217.251]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9Pf-0001mf-Jm for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:55:40 -0400 Received: from [172.16.1.99] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:55:35 +0100 Message-ID: <46CCB0D0.3090305@isode.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:55:28 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+) X-Scan-Signature: e472ca43d56132790a46d9eefd95f0a5 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org John, May apologies to you (and probably Harald) for the late comment on this message. John C Klensin wrote: >--On Tuesday, 14 August, 2007 20:16 +0200 Harald Tveit >Alvestrand wrote: > > >>Hello folks, >> >>after the discussions both on- and off-list after Chicago, we >>seem to have reached the following conclusions: >> >>- In the list of MIME types, there are people who see actual >>technical issues with the MIME types - some are issues of >>style ("we don't do things that way"), others are issues of >>perception ("that will make the thing look silly in 5 years"), >>but they are very real issues that we should consider >>carefully. >> >>- In the IETF tradition, we don't do voting - we do do opinion >>polls, and even allow close calls when it is more important to >>draw a conclusion than which one is chosen - but we never do >>anonymous polls. People are expected to stand for their >>opinions. >> >>- Documented technical issues, where there's consensus that >>the issue is adequately described and merits consideration, >>always overrule opinions. >> >>Based on this background, the process we will follow is as >>follows: >> >>- FIRST, we need to have documented the issues perceived with >>the MIME type choice. I'm asking people to do that via mail to >>the mailing list, between now and FRIDAY, AUGUST 17. >>... >>Seems OK? >> >> >Harald, > >While, as you know, I've still got some process concerns, this >is probably close enough to reasonable that I can live with it >if those who "vote" actually express preferences all the way >down as you suggest. > >Consistent with your suggestions above, I see the names falling >into three categories. Let me identify them and then go into >details and examples below. > >(1) Names that will encourage incompatible and non-conforming >extensions. > >(2) Names that do not appropriately describe what is going on >and, more important, will cause long-term embarrassment by >branding i18n mail permanently as a second-class add-on. We >should be looking for names that identify email i18n as the >mainstream for Internet mail, with systems that do not support >it as slightly-retarded (obsolete) legacy implementations. > >(3) Names that are ok. As I tried to say in Chicago, I don't >care how we pick among this: a preference ballot is fine, but >some would be a coin-toss or more elaborate random-choice >procedure. > >The first two categories are not mutually exclusive: some names >fall into both of them. > >Details and examples: > >(1) In the MIME types definition, we were careful to make >distinctions between character set identification (properly >placed in "charset=" parameters when they are needed), encoding >and on-the-wire compression methods (properly placed in >Content-Transfer-Encoding (C-T-E)), and actual content types and >name things accordingly. There are gray areas. For example, we >have application/zip (or x-zip), rather than >"Content-transfer-encoding: zip" but that was after a long >discussion that hinged, in part, on the observations that "zip" >was 8bit and hence would require additional encoding and that, >while it might be reasonable for a final delivery MTA or the >server-side of a mail access protocol to decode other C-T-Es, it >was probably not reasonable for them to explode zip files. > >There is an additional problem for character set designations, >which is that the use of one of them may encourage the use of >others. For example message/utf8 (or message/utf8foo) might >encourage the non-standard development and deployment of >message/latin1 or message/8859-1 or message/EUC in areas where >those codings are still more popular than Unicode in UTF-8 >encoding. > >That reasoning and history make message/utf8 and, to a lesser >degree, the strings that contain "utf8", substantively bad >ideas, not just a matter of taste. > > This is a very convincing argument. Thank you. >(2) As I said in Chicago, I'd like people considering the >various alternatives to think about how someone looking at these >strings a decade from now, when (we assume) the UTF8SMTP >extension and formats will be fully deployed, downgrading will >(almost) never occur, and message/rfc822 will be largely >history. message/rfc822 has caused confusion as to whether the >messages conform to RFC822 and RFC2822 (or, soon, RFC2822bis). >The IDN WG was promised that "Punycode" --neither the name nor >the format-- would be seen outside the low-level technical >environment, but it leaked in ways that have created confusion >about just what the name refers to as well as some bad jokes >about IETF disrespect for the non-English-speaking community. > >Names that contain RFC numbers (which seem to have dropped out >during the initial poll) or present or proposed IETF WG names >seem to me to be problematic in this regard. Those include >message/eai, message/ima, and, to a lesser extent, strings >containing "eai" or "ima". > I agree regarding use of RFC numbers, but I find eai and ima to be much less problematic. Just think they are are acronyms in a long forgotten language. In this respect message/dragon might be just as good ;-). > There is also some question about >variations of "internationalized" such as message/i18n or >strings containing "i18n": after all, long-term, what other sort >of messages should the be that are not internationalized? > I agree on this. I also think that MIME is sufficiently internationalized (as far as subject and message bodies are concerned, so I also fine the label i18n to be somewhat confusing) >Do we really want to give long-term special status to ASCII-only email >and acknowledge that status by saying that this non-default form >is somehow transformed or adapted to be i18n (my apologies >non-native speakers of English, but there is a considerable >semantic difference between "internationalized", implying that >some action needed to be taken to get things that way from a >normal base that presumably isn't internationalized and >"international" which is just a statement of what something is)? >Message/international and Message/global are much less >problematic in this regard, at least to my sense of vocabulary. > >(3) This is the more or less neutral group. Of the proposals >that are now on the table (per the discussion in Harald's note >of Friday, 20 July, 2007 08:19 -0700), message/mail appears to >be the neutral choice: at least we are clearly talking about >mail messages, and not, e.g., IM messages or the like. >message/email or message/imail (for Internet mail) seem >equivalent. > but I should mention that I somewhat disagree with John on this point. I think using any MIME types containing "mail" is bad, because the new MIME type is not necessarily limited to email (usenet and SIP might be some other places where this will be used eventually). > As discussed above, message/international or >message/global are probably as good: a little redundant, but not >harmful. > >Just my opinion, of course. > > _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 06:23:31 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9qc-0002zz-9U; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:23:30 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9qa-0002zt-R6 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:23:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9qa-0002zl-FH for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:23:28 -0400 Received: from twnic.net.tw ([211.72.210.250]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IO9qY-0002Dx-Et for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:23:28 -0400 Received: from aabbeell (pc093.twnic.net.tw [211.72.211.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by twnic.net.tw (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l7NAN5Y5016194; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:23:05 +0800 Message-ID: <03e101c7e56f$ef037420$c7d348d3@aabbeell> From: "abel" To: , "Xiaodong\(Sheldon\) Lee" References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:11:21 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896 X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 21c69d3cfc2dd19218717dbe1d974352 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1364549930==" Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1364549930== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03C8_01C7E5B1.0214ACF0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03C8_01C7E5B1.0214ACF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [ 2] message/eai [ 8] message/global [ 6 ] message/i18n [ 7 ] message/i18n-email [ 3] message/ima [ 9] message/international [ 10] message/intl-email [ 11] message/mail =20 [ 5] message/utf8-email=20 [ 4 ] message/utf8eai [ 1 ] message/utf8smtp ------=_NextPart_000_03C8_01C7E5B1.0214ACF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
[  2] = message/eai
[  8]=20 message/global
[ 6 ] message/i18n
[ 7 ]=20 message/i18n-email
[ 3] message/ima
[ 9] = message/international
[=20 10] message/intl-email
[ 11]=20 message/mail          &= nbsp; =20
[ 5] message/utf8-email
[ 4 ] = message/utf8eai
[ 1 ]=20 message/utf8smtp
------=_NextPart_000_03C8_01C7E5B1.0214ACF0-- --===============1364549930== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --===============1364549930==-- From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 06:43:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOAAC-0001yq-Me; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:44 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOAAB-0001yj-GJ for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:43 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOAAB-0001ya-3M for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:43 -0400 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOAAA-0002aV-IA for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:43 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IOAA9-000AG1-J7; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:42 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 06:43:40 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Alexey Melnikov Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details Message-ID: <98927E9231696D9FE00B12EC@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <46CCB0D0.3090305@isode.com> References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> <46CCB0D0.3090305@isode.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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --On Wednesday, 22 August, 2007 22:55 +0100 Alexey Melnikov wrote: >... >> Names that contain RFC numbers (which seem to have dropped out >> during the initial poll) or present or proposed IETF WG names >> seem to me to be problematic in this regard. Those include >> message/eai, message/ima, and, to a lesser extent, strings >> containing "eai" or "ima". >> > I agree regarding use of RFC numbers, but I find eai and ima > to be much less problematic. Just think they are are acronyms > in a long forgotten language. > In this respect message/dragon might be just as good ;-). I agree that, in some hierarchy of problems, eai and ima are less problematic than RFC numbers or the equivalent. And, if we could be assured that the entities being referenced were friendly Asian dragons rather than nasty European ones, I would prefer message/dragon to either one :-) >> There is also some question about >> variations of "internationalized" such as message/i18n or >> strings containing "i18n": after all, long-term, what other >> sort of messages should the be that are not internationalized? >> > I agree on this. I also think that MIME is sufficiently > internationalized (as far as subject and message bodies are > concerned, so I also fine the label i18n to be somewhat > confusing) Indeed. >... >> (3) This is the more or less neutral group. Of the proposals >> that are now on the table (per the discussion in Harald's note >> of Friday, 20 July, 2007 08:19 -0700), message/mail appears to >> be the neutral choice: at least we are clearly talking about >> mail messages, and not, e.g., IM messages or the like. >> message/email or message/imail (for Internet mail) seem >> equivalent. > but I should mention that I somewhat disagree with John on > this point. I think using any MIME types containing "mail" is > bad, because the new MIME type is not necessarily limited to > email (usenet and SIP might be some other places where this > will be used eventually). As I have tried to say before, I am not completely happy about any of the offered choices. I do not consider "mail" to be a really good choice, merely one of the less problematic ones. I don't know whether I would classify it as better or worse than "message/dragon" or, given the possible confusion about dragon-behavior, perhaps "message/dolphin" or "message/penguin". john _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 14:11:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOH95-0006rX-06; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:11:03 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOH94-0006rS-8o for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOH93-0006rK-UI for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:11:01 -0400 Received: from 74-134-5-162.dhcp.insightbb.com ([74.134.5.162] helo=episteme-software.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOH93-0006uo-GL for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:11:01 -0400 Received: from [74.134.5.163] (127.0.0.1) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.2); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:10:56 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <98927E9231696D9FE00B12EC@p3.JCK.COM> References: <3492B986291BB424D59D5032@[192.168.1.119]> <00F56C0405A5F8F205539410@p3.JCK.COM> <46CCB0D0.3090305@isode.com> <98927E9231696D9FE00B12EC@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.3a0] Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:11:02 -0500 To: John C Klensin From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [EAI] Poll for MIME type - revised schedule and details Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On 8/23/07 at 6:43 AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Wednesday, 22 August, 2007 22:55 +0100 Alexey Melnikov > wrote: > >>I agree regarding use of RFC numbers, but I find eai and ima to be >>much less problematic. Just think they are are acronyms in a long >>forgotten language. >>In this respect message/dragon might be just as good ;-). > >I agree that, in some hierarchy of problems, eai and ima are less >problematic than RFC numbers or the equivalent. And, if we could be >assured that the entities being referenced were friendly Asian >dragons rather than nasty European ones, I would prefer >message/dragon to either one :-) Yeah, I think Alexey has convinced me that "eai" and "ima" belong in your category 3: Pretty much neutral. >>but I should mention that I somewhat disagree with John on this >>point. I think using any MIME types containing "mail" is bad, >>because the new MIME type is not necessarily limited to email >>(usenet and SIP might be some other places where this will be used >>eventually). > >As I have tried to say before, I am not completely happy about any >of the offered choices. I do not consider "mail" to be a really good >choice, merely one of the less problematic ones. I don't know >whether I would classify it as better or worse than "message/dragon" >or, given the possible confusion about dragon-behavior, perhaps >"message/dolphin" or "message/penguin". Again, I'm with Alexey. I consider "mail" *far* worse than "dragon" (or "dolphin" or "penguin" for that matter :-) ) simply because it is meaningful ("This is a mail message") and at the same time meaningless ("This might be a news or other kind of message, and what about its 'mailness' distinguishes it from an 'rfc822'?"). I am, however, less worried about the utf8 ones than either John or Alexey; I agree that they invite stupidity, but really, utf8-ness is what distinguishes these things. Not my number 1 pick though. I find myself wanting to rate 1-5 on the list, and mark everything else as 11. :-/ pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 14:15:17 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHDB-0002uc-DU; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:15:17 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHDA-0002uX-84 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:15:16 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHD9-0002uP-UD for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:15:15 -0400 Received: from 74-134-5-162.dhcp.insightbb.com ([74.134.5.162] helo=episteme-software.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHD9-00070w-Lf for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:15:15 -0400 Received: from [74.134.5.163] (127.0.0.1) by episteme-software.com with ESMTP (EIMS X 3.3.2); Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:15:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: resnick@resnick1.qualcomm.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 6.3a0] Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:15:17 -0500 To: harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong\(Sheldon\) Lee" From: Pete Resnick Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 7bac9cb154eb5790ae3b2913587a40de Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On 8/20/07 at 1:34 AM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS Do you specifically *not* want us to post our replies to the list? pr -- Pete Resnick QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 14:42:42 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHdh-0002mc-Cc; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:41 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHdf-0002mV-Ti for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHdf-0002mN-KC for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOHde-0006uG-BO for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:39 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1IOHdU-000Law-UO; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:42:27 -0400 From: John C Klensin To: Pete Resnick , harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong\\(Sheldon\\) Lee" Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Message-ID: <1681869C7B3334D355FF2E90@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> 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 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --On Thursday, 23 August, 2007 13:15 -0500 Pete Resnick wrote: > On 8/20/07 at 1:34 AM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > >> Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS > > Do you specifically *not* want us to post our replies to the > list? That was how I interpreted it, but obviously several others did not john _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 21:01:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IONYf-0007vv-D8; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:53 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IONYe-0007vq-RF for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IONYe-0007vi-HY for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:52 -0400 Received: from vgateway.libertyrms.info ([207.219.45.62] helo=mail.libertyrms.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IONYe-0001bk-Ai for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:52 -0400 Received: from jyee-vpn.int.libertyrms.com ([10.1.7.126] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by mail.libertyrms.com with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1IONYY-0001Ba-P5; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:46 -0400 Message-ID: <46CE2E05.2070607@ca.afilias.info> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:01:57 -0400 From: Joseph Yee User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: harald@alvestrand.no, "Xiaodong(Sheldon) Lee" Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: jyee@ca.afilias.info X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org ====== POLL START ======= [ 7] message/eai [ 6] message/global [ 5] message/i18n [ 3] message/i18n-email [10] message/ima [11] message/international [ 2] message/intl-email [ 4] message/mail [ 1] message/utf8-email [ 8] message/utf8eai [ 9] message/utf8smtp ======= POLL END ====== _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 23 21:33:13 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOO2z-0004x8-F6; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:33:13 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOO2y-0004vd-82 for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:33:12 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOO2x-0004u4-TU for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:33:11 -0400 Received: from sniper.icu.ac.kr ([210.107.128.51]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOO2w-0003g2-U9 for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:33:11 -0400 Received: (snipe 4143 invoked by uid 0); 24 Aug 2007 10:33:26 +0900 Received: from newcat@icu.ac.kr with Spamsniper 2.96.00 (Processed in 1.202788 secs); Received: from unknown (HELO ?210.107.251.6?) (Z???own@210.107.251.6) by unknown with SMTP; 24 Aug 2007 10:33:25 +0900 X-SNIPER-SENDERIP: 210.107.251.6 X-SNIPER-MAILFROM: newcat@icu.ac.kr X-SNIPER-RCPTTO: klensin@jck.com, presnick@qualcomm.com, harald@alvestrand.no, lee@cnnic.cn, ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <46CE3550.4030206@icu.ac.kr> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:33:04 +0900 From: Yangwoo Ko User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John C Klensin Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> <1681869C7B3334D355FF2E90@p3.JCK.COM> In-Reply-To: <1681869C7B3334D355FF2E90@p3.JCK.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f Cc: Pete Resnick , EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, 23 August, 2007 13:15 -0500 Pete Resnick > wrote: > >> On 8/20/07 at 1:34 AM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> >>> Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS >> Do you specifically *not* want us to post our replies to the >> list? > > That was how I interpreted it, but obviously several others did > not Oops. I am one of "several others". Sorry for my misunderstading and possible interference with the process. I interpreted the above sentence based on additional explanations given after the sentence that was "(for multi-place record-keeping)". For this purpose, I thought that I'd better keep my poll as many places as possible by posting to the list. > > john > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima > _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 24 01:55:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOS8J-0001f3-6G; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:54:59 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOS8I-0001ey-9p for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:54:58 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOS8H-0001eq-Vn for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:54:57 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOS8F-00074o-BY for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:54:57 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BAEF259736; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:54:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23309-10; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:54:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.119] (162.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.162]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B2B259730; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:54:46 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:53:09 +0200 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand To: John C Klensin , Pete Resnick , "Xiaodong\\(Sheldon\\) Lee" Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Message-ID: <7A6BEE9E2AAC749D0F094B5F@[192.168.1.119]> In-Reply-To: <1681869C7B3334D355FF2E90@p3.JCK.COM> References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> <1681869C7B3334D355FF2E90@p3.JCK.COM> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --On 23. august 2007 14:42 -0400 John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Thursday, 23 August, 2007 13:15 -0500 Pete Resnick > wrote: > >> On 8/20/07 at 1:34 AM +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> >>> Please send your responses to BOTH OF THE CHAIRS >> >> Do you specifically *not* want us to post our replies to the >> list? > > That was how I interpreted it, but obviously several others did > not I did not say anything about it, and that was quite deliberate - I did not want to claim that people SHOULD keep their opinion secret - indeed, I wanted people to state what they were in favour of and why they were in favour of it, but I'd heard the concern expressed that if people knew what the opinions were halfway through, they could be tempted to try to "vote tactically" in order to influence the outcome. In the event, we have enough people who have voiced their opinion without telling the list that this issue should not be a concern. Of course, all positions will be listed in the results announced later today. Harald _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 24 04:05:21 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUAT-0000zQ-GZ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:05:21 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUAS-0000ws-La for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:05:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUAR-0000uF-R2 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:05:20 -0400 Received: from ns5.lsb.org ([211.196.150.53] helo=postel5.postel.co.kr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUAP-0001du-Tl for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:05:19 -0400 Received: from postel5.postel.co.kr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postel5.postel.co.kr (8.13.0.PreAlpha4/8.13.0.PreAlpha4) with ESMTP id l7O850Ut004142; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:05:00 +0900 Received: (from lsb@localhost) by postel5.postel.co.kr (8.13.0.PreAlpha4/8.13.0.PreAlpha4/Submit) id l7O84v9I004103; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:04:57 +0900 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:04:57 +0900 From: Soobok Lee To: abel Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Message-ID: <20070824080457.GA15521@postel5.postel.co.kr> References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> <03e101c7e56f$ef037420$c7d348d3@aabbeell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <03e101c7e56f$ef037420$c7d348d3@aabbeell> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 06:11:21PM +0800, abel wrote: > [ 2] message/eai > [ 8] message/global > [ 6 ] message/i18n > [ 7 ] message/i18n-email > [ 3] message/ima > [ 9] message/international > [ 10] message/intl-email > [ 11] message/mail > [ 5] message/utf8-email > [ 4 ] message/utf8eai > [ 1 ] message/utf8smtp +1. I favor "message/utf8smtp" for consistency, since we already have"message/rfc822" nd "message/rfc2822". rfc2822 and utf8smtp both are protocol names. Soobok ( OT: sorry for my recent absence in this WG.) _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 24 04:24:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUSl-00051l-8v; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:24:15 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUSk-00051g-Oj for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:24:14 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUSk-00051Y-FL for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:24:14 -0400 Received: from ns5.lsb.org ([211.196.150.53] helo=postel5.postel.co.kr) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOUSi-0001xw-Ud for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:24:14 -0400 Received: from postel5.postel.co.kr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by postel5.postel.co.kr (8.13.0.PreAlpha4/8.13.0.PreAlpha4) with ESMTP id l7O8OBUt008518; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:24:11 +0900 Received: (from lsb@localhost) by postel5.postel.co.kr (8.13.0.PreAlpha4/8.13.0.PreAlpha4/Submit) id l7O8OAHf008517; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:24:10 +0900 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:24:10 +0900 From: Soobok Lee To: abel Subject: Re: [EAI] POLL: MIME type preference - final selection Message-ID: <20070824082410.GA10104@postel5.postel.co.kr> References: <46C8D376.6010103@alvestrand.no> <03e101c7e56f$ef037420$c7d348d3@aabbeell> <20070824080457.GA15521@postel5.postel.co.kr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070824080457.GA15521@postel5.postel.co.kr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: EAI WG X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 05:04:57PM +0900, Soobok Lee wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 06:11:21PM +0800, abel wrote: > > [ 2] message/eai > > [ 8] message/global > > [ 6 ] message/i18n > > [ 7 ] message/i18n-email > > [ 3] message/ima > > [ 9] message/international > > [ 10] message/intl-email > > [ 11] message/mail > > [ 5] message/utf8-email > > [ 4 ] message/utf8eai > > [ 1 ] message/utf8smtp > > +1. I favor "message/utf8smtp" for consistency, since > we already have"message/rfc822" nd "message/rfc2822". > > rfc2822 and utf8smtp both are protocol names. I forgot to put this: If some poor email recipient finds his MUA cannot parse "message/utf8smtp", he "view-source"s it and tries google "utf8smtp" and found new RFC with such title had been issued. He will go his MUA official homepage and find new utf8smtp-compliant version has come out. If [utf8smtp] draft be issued "RFC4xxx", Then "message/rfc4xxx" is okay to me as an alias to the above one. This naming pattern is consistent with that of "message/rfc2822". Soobok _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Aug 24 05:49:45 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOVnU-0001eA-L4; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:49:44 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOVnT-0001V9-2v for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:49:43 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOVnS-0001TV-P9 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:49:42 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOVnQ-0003UQ-Sp for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:49:42 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582C925974A for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:49:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29375-10 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:49:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D9A259749 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:49:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46CEA9AD.6020301@alvestrand.no> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:49:33 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: EAI WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0e9ebc0cbd700a87c0637ad0e2c91610 Subject: [EAI] And the winner is...... MESSAGE/GLOBAL X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org more serioiusly: After considering the available alternatives, and after weighing the various arguments given in favour of one group of alternatives or the other, the WG consensus seems to be that it's not unreasonable to go with the name "MESSAGE/GLOBAL" for the MIME type that represents messages structured according to draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers. Details below, written from the very useful program that Charles Lindsey supplied. The slicing and dicing of this list should give a lot of indication of which arguments found favour, which were universally accepted, which were strongly polarizing, and which were studiously ignored. But I believe that we Interesting points: - There were 8 (out of 11) alternatives where someone had that alternative in the first spot. - Message/i18n was the only one to not have any instance in the 2 first spots - The same type was also the only one that nobody had in the last 2 spots The last opinion to be stated arrived in my mailbox just 4 minutes after the deadline; I chose to include it, and it did not affect the outcome. If I missed anyone's opinion, or anyone spots a transcription error, please call it out! NOTE: I'll be largely-off-net from approx. 1 hour after sending this message unti Wednesday evening, August 29. So don't expect rapid responses to such notices - sorry about that! message/utf8smtp-------------------------------------------------------------+ message/utf8eai-----------------------------------------------------------+ | message/utf8-email-----------------------------------------------------+ | | message/mail--------------------------------------------------------+ | | | message/intl-email-----------------------------------------------+ | | | | message/international-----------------------------------------+ | | | | | message/ima------------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | message/i18n-email--------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | message/i18n-----------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | message/global------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | message/eai------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Abel Yang 2 8 6 7 3 9 10 11 5 4 1 Alexey Melnikov 1 3 5 7 2 4 6 9 10 8 11 Andrew Sullivan 10 2 5 4 11 3 6 1 8 9 7 Bill McQuillan 7 5 3 4 8 1 2 6 9 11 10 Charles Lindsey 10 6 7 2 11 8 1 5 3 9 4 Chris Newman 8 2 7 5 9 1 3 4 6 10 11 Harald Alvestrand 10 2 3 6 11 1 5 4 9 8 7 John Klensin 5 3 7 8 6 4 2 1 10 11 9 Joseph Yee 7 6 5 3 10 11 2 4 1 8 9 Kazunori Fujiwara 2 10 8 5 4 9 7 11 6 3 1 Mao Wei 11 1 6 5 10 2 3 4 7 8 9 Martin Duerst 3 4 6 7 2 5 8 1 10 9 11 Pete Resnick 2 5 9 10 1 3 6 11 7 4 8 Soobok Lee 2 8 6 7 3 9 10 11 5 4 1 Ted Hardie 1 4 5 6 2 7 8 3 9 11 10 Tony Hansen 7 2 5 4 6 1 3 10 8 9 11 Trond Skjesol 9 8 4 3 10 11 2 1 6 7 5 Yangwoo Ko 10 2 4 5 11 3 6 1 7 9 8 Yao Jiankang 10 2 8 5 9 1 3 4 6 7 11 Yoshiro Yoneya 10 6 5 2 11 4 1 3 7 8 9 Zoltan Ordogh 10 7 8 4 9 1 2 6 3 11 5 RESULT: message/global is preferred to message/eai by 14 : 7 message/global is preferred to message/i18n by 14 : 7 message/global is preferred to message/i18n-email by 12 : 9 message/global is preferred to message/ima by 14 : 7 message/global is preferred to message/international by 12 : 9 message/global is preferred to message/intl-email by 13 : 8 message/global is preferred to message/mail by 11 : 10 message/global is preferred to message/utf8-email by 14 : 7 message/global is preferred to message/utf8eai by 16 : 5 message/global is preferred to message/utf8smtp by 15 : 6 message/global is therefore a condorcet winner The following matrix shows the votes in more detail. The number at [row,column] indicates the number of voters who placed the [row] option ahead of the [column] option in their order of preference message/utf8smtp---------------------------------------------------------+ | message/utf8eai----------------------------------------------------+ | | | message/utf8-email-------------------------------------------+ | | | | | message/mail-------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | message/intl-email-------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | message/international----------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | message/ima--------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/i18n-email-------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/i18n-------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/global-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/eai--+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +--------- \\ 7 8 8 15 9 7 7 10 13 10 | | | | | | | | | +----------- 14 \\ 14 12 14 12 13 11 14 16 15 | | | | | | | | +------------- 13 7 \\ 10 13 7 8 8 12 16 15 | | | | | | | +--------------- 13 9 11 \\ 13 8 7 11 16 17 17 | | | | | | +----------------- 6 7 8 8 \\ 9 7 7 10 11 9 | | | | | +------------------- 12 9 14 13 12 \\ 15 12 15 16 15 | | | | +--------------------- 14 8 13 14 14 6 \\ 14 17 17 18 | | | +----------------------- 14 10 13 10 14 9 7 \\ 13 15 15 | | +------------------------- 11 7 9 5 11 6 4 8 \\ 14 14 | +--------------------------- 8 5 5 4 10 5 4 6 7 \\ 9 +----------------------------- 11 6 6 4 12 6 3 6 7 12 \\ The second matrix shows the effect of subtracting [column,row] from [row.column] so as to give the majority in favour of [row] as against [column]. Observe that the winning row(s) has no negative entries. message/utf8smtp---------------------------------------------------------+ | message/utf8eai----------------------------------------------------+ | | | message/utf8-email-------------------------------------------+ | | | | | message/mail-------------------------------------------+ | | | | | | | message/intl-email-------------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | message/international----------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | message/ima--------------------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/i18n-email-------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/i18n-------------+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/global-----+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | message/eai--+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | +--------- \\ -7 -5 -5 9 -3 -7 -7 -1 5 -1 | | | | | | | | | +----------- 7 \\ 7 3 7 3 5 1 7 11 9 winner | | | | | | | | +------------- 5 -7 \\ -1 5 -7 -5 -5 3 11 9 | | | | | | | +--------------- 5 -3 1 \\ 5 -5 -7 1 11 13 13 | | | | | | +----------------- -9 -7 -5 -5 \\ -3 -7 -7 -1 1 -3 | | | | | +------------------- 3 -3 7 5 3 \\ 9 3 9 11 9 | | | | +--------------------- 7 -5 5 7 7 -9 \\ 7 13 13 15 | | | +----------------------- 7 -1 5 -1 7 -3 -7 \\ 5 9 9 | | +------------------------- 1 -7 -3 -11 1 -9 -13 -5 \\ 7 7 | +--------------------------- -5 -11 -11 -13 -1 -11 -13 -9 -7 \\ -3 +----------------------------- 1 -9 -9 -13 3 -9 -15 -9 -7 3 \\ _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Sun Aug 26 12:00:04 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPKWr-0002ap-8I; Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:59:57 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IOcQE-0000d1-6c for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOcQD-0000co-TB for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:09 -0400 Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([204.152.186.98]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOcQC-0006pl-91 for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:54:09 -0400 Received: from localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9329142204; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and clamav at osafoundation.org Received: from laweleka.osafoundation.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (laweleka.osafoundation.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qrRum6FHMpG; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [74.95.2.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by laweleka.osafoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A27CB142203; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:54:04 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) To: ima@ietf.org, imapext@ietf.org, ietf-822@imc.org Message-Id: <807BC3BE-7D74-4238-987F-C11240D907C3@osafoundation.org> References: From: Lisa Dusseault Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:54:02 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Scan-Signature: e472ca43d56132790a46d9eefd95f0a5 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:59:56 -0400 Cc: Subject: [EAI] Fwd: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID Header Field) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2099507765==" Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --===============2099507765== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9--786154778 --Apple-Mail-9--786154778 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed FYI on this last call document relating to email header fields. Please note that some review on the Apps-review team list has already suggested this go to Experimental instead (http://www1.ietf.org/mail- archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00062.html ). Thanks, Lisa Begin forwarded message: > From: The IESG > Date: August 24, 2007 6:51:05 AM PDT > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid (The Jabber-ID > Header Field) to Proposed Standard > Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to > consider > the following document: > > - 'The Jabber-ID Header Field ' > as a Proposed Standard > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to > the > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2007-09-21. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-jabberid-05.txt > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi? > command=view_id&dTag=14260&rfc_flag=0 > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce --Apple-Mail-9--786154778 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 FYI on this last call document = relating to email header fields.=A0 Please note that some review on the = Apps-review team list has already suggested this go to Experimental = instead=A0 (http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-review/current/msg00062.= html ).

Thanks,
Lisa
<= DIV>
Begin forwarded message:

From: = The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Date: August 24, 2007 6:51:05 AM = PDT
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: draft-saintandre-jabberid = (The Jabber-ID Header=A0 = Field) to Proposed Standard=A0
Reply-To: = ietf@ietf.org

The = IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to = consider=A0
the following document:

- 'The = Jabber-ID Header Field '
=A0=A0 = <draft-saintandre-jabberid-05.txt> as a Proposed = Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few = weeks, and solicits
final comments on this = action.=A0 Please send = substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by = 2007-09-21. Exceptionally,=A0
comments = may be sent to iesg@ietf.org = instead. In either case, please=A0
retain = the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file = can be obtained via




IETF-Announce mailing list
https://www1= .ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
=
= --Apple-Mail-9--786154778-- --===============2099507765== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --===============2099507765==-- From ima-bounces@ietf.org Mon Aug 27 17:29:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPm91-0003G2-LJ; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:29:11 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IPm90-0003Fw-AD for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:29:10 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPm8z-0003Fo-VV for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:29:10 -0400 Received: from lon-mail-1.gradwell.net ([193.111.201.125]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IPm8v-0002Dk-1a for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:29:05 -0400 Received: from [80.175.135.89] ([80.175.135.89] helo=clerew.man.ac.uk country=GB ident=postmaster*pop3#clerew&man&ac&uk) by lon-mail-1.gradwell.net with esmtpa (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.250) id 46d3421b.e387.ed for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:28:59 +0100 (envelope-sender ) 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 l7RLSwRn017903 for ; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:28:59 +0100 (BST) To: IMA Subject: Re: [EAI] And the winner is...... MESSAGE/GLOBAL References: <46CEA9AD.6020301@alvestrand.no> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:28:57 +0100 From: "Charles Lindsey" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <46CEA9AD.6020301@alvestrand.no> User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (SunOS, build 1204) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:49:33 +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > more serioiusly: > > After considering the available alternatives, and after weighing the > various arguments given in favour of one group of alternatives or the > other, the WG consensus seems to be that it's not unreasonable to go > with the name "MESSAGE/GLOBAL" for the MIME type that represents > messages structured according to draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers. OK, so now we have a nice new word "Global". Maybe it could now be used elsewhere. For example, we could choose to name the whole package we are discussing, so that the new type of email will become known as "global email". Use "GLOBAL" as the name of the extension in EHLO. And so on. It is certainly the sort of word that the community would pick up and run with. -- 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 _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Thu Aug 30 06:41:54 2007 Return-path: Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQhTA-0007jy-0w; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:41:48 -0400 Received: from ima by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IQhT8-0007js-Bx for ima-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:41:46 -0400 Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQhT8-0007jk-17 for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:41:46 -0400 Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([158.38.152.233]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQhT7-00035P-Jx for ima@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:41:45 -0400 Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951CB2596C1; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:41:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00601-01; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:41:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5369C2596BE; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:41:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <46D69EE1.9030601@alvestrand.no> Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:41:37 +0200 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070604) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Charles Lindsey Subject: Re: [EAI] And the winner is...... MESSAGE/GLOBAL References: <46CEA9AD.6020301@alvestrand.no> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Cc: IMA X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:49:33 +0100, Harald Alvestrand > wrote: > >> more serioiusly: >> >> After considering the available alternatives, and after weighing the >> various arguments given in favour of one group of alternatives or the >> other, the WG consensus seems to be that it's not unreasonable to go >> with the name "MESSAGE/GLOBAL" for the MIME type that represents >> messages structured according to draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers. > > OK, so now we have a nice new word "Global". Maybe it could now be > used elsewhere. > > For example, we could choose to name the whole package we are > discussing, so that the new type of email will become known as "global > email". Use "GLOBAL" as the name of the extension in EHLO. And so on. > It is certainly the sort of word that the community would pick up and > run with. I don't think we want to go there. 1) It's a previously resolved issue. 2) The UTF8SMTP extension is very much bound to use in SMTP 3) Try googling for "global". Harald _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima