From ima-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 7 08:48:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ima-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 599213A69A6; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:48:03 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F3413A69A6 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:48:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlRnOE5BxMU9 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 331503A694D for ; Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:48:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LKbZL-000CO6-8D for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:47:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:47:43 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: ima@ietf.org Message-ID: <3A7D686AA42A9D33730D7143@PST.jck.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [EAI] IETF Last Call comment on downgrade X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ima-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Hi. Just FYI, I just posted a lengthy note to the IETF list on the downgrade Last Call (deliberately late, as the note indicates). It supports publishing the document as Experimental, but reviews all of the reasons why EAI might be a lot cleaner and simpler with a traditional "either the address is deliverable or it is not" model rather than in-transit downgrading. I didn't cross-post it here because I use different addresses for the two lists. I've said all of this before (although at more length to the design team than the WG); none of it should come as any surprise to anyone who has been following the WG's work. A summary of the suggestion in the note is that * The document should be published as Experimental; if we are going to support in-transit downgrading, it is probably the best that can be done. * During the experiment period, the community should review costs and benefits very carefully, especially wrt interactions with the non-EAI-aware systems with which downgrading is expected to help, leakage of the new address forms to older systems and how the latter react, relative costs of implementation, etc. best new year's wishes to all. best, john _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 9 01:34:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ima-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57CAC3A6969; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:34:24 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04083A6969 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:34:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.023 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id txy+MN9Yk8BS for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:34:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.194]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CAEB3A692F for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id n099Y7oP018712 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:34:07 +0900 (JST) Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 4f41_a9599934_de30_11dd_a4ee_0019b9e2b3d9; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:34:07 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:47648) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 18:26:01 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20090109180627.08419370@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:09:16 +0900 To: John C Klensin , ima@ietf.org From: Martin Duerst In-Reply-To: <3A7D686AA42A9D33730D7143@PST.jck.com> References: <3A7D686AA42A9D33730D7143@PST.jck.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [EAI] IETF Last Call comment on downgrade X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ima-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org Hello John, As far as I'm aware of, all the documents from this WG so far have been published as experimental (or informational for those that don't specify any kind of protocol or format). Are you saying that downgrade should be even more experimental than experimental? Or that you think that while the others should go to proposed in a next round, that shouldn't apply to downgrade? Or what? Regards, Martin. At 01:47 09/01/08, John C Klensin wrote: >Hi. > >Just FYI, I just posted a lengthy note to the IETF list on the >downgrade Last Call (deliberately late, as the note indicates). >It supports publishing the document as Experimental, but reviews >all of the reasons why EAI might be a lot cleaner and simpler >with a traditional "either the address is deliverable or it is >not" model rather than in-transit downgrading. > >I didn't cross-post it here because I use different addresses >for the two lists. > >I've said all of this before (although at more length to the >design team than the WG); none of it should come as any surprise >to anyone who has been following the WG's work. > >A summary of the suggestion in the note is that > >* The document should be published as Experimental; if we are >going to support in-transit downgrading, it is probably the best >that can be done. > >* During the experiment period, the community should review >costs and benefits very carefully, especially wrt interactions >with the non-EAI-aware systems with which downgrading is >expected to help, leakage of the new address forms to older >systems and how the latter react, relative costs of >implementation, etc. > >best new year's wishes to all. > best, > john > >_______________________________________________ >IMA mailing list >IMA@ietf.org >https://www.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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 9 01:41:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ima-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1661C3A68CB; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:41:49 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E3E3A68CB for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:41:47 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.046 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fYjs8va1T-At for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:41:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 769923A67BD for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 01:41:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (eyou send program); Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:41:32 +0800 Message-ID: <431494092.01700@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO yaojk) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:41:32 +0800 Message-ID: <014301c9723e$733b8870$236ff1da@yaojk> From: "YAO Jiankang" To: "John C Klensin" , , "Martin Duerst" References: <3A7D686AA42A9D33730D7143@PST.jck.com> <431493656.10333@cnnic.cn> Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:41:28 +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 V6.00.2900.3350 Subject: Re: [EAI] IETF Last Call comment on downgrade X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ima-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Duerst" To: "John C Klensin" ; Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [EAI] IETF Last Call comment on downgrade > Hello John, > > As far as I'm aware of, all the documents from this WG > so far have been published as experimental (or informational > for those that don't specify any kind of protocol or format). > > Are you saying that downgrade should be even more > experimental than experimental? >Or that you think > that while the others should go to proposed in a > next round, that shouldn't apply to downgrade? I think that your second understanding is what John wants to express. > Or what? > > Regards, Martin. > > At 01:47 09/01/08, John C Klensin wrote: >>Hi. >> >>Just FYI, I just posted a lengthy note to the IETF list on the >>downgrade Last Call (deliberately late, as the note indicates). >>It supports publishing the document as Experimental, but reviews >>all of the reasons why EAI might be a lot cleaner and simpler >>with a traditional "either the address is deliverable or it is >>not" model rather than in-transit downgrading. >> >>I didn't cross-post it here because I use different addresses >>for the two lists. >> >>I've said all of this before (although at more length to the >>design team than the WG); none of it should come as any surprise >>to anyone who has been following the WG's work. >> >>A summary of the suggestion in the note is that >> >>* The document should be published as Experimental; if we are >>going to support in-transit downgrading, it is probably the best >>that can be done. >> >>* During the experiment period, the community should review >>costs and benefits very carefully, especially wrt interactions >>with the non-EAI-aware systems with which downgrading is >>expected to help, leakage of the new address forms to older >>systems and how the latter react, relative costs of >>implementation, etc. >> >>best new year's wishes to all. >> best, >> john >> >>_______________________________________________ >>IMA mailing list >>IMA@ietf.org >>https://www.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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jan 9 07:32:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ima-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B4B3A6A70; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:32:33 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FDF93A6A70 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:32:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5VmIPfySSUKY for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:32:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9342F3A6358 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 07:32:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1LLJLA-0009ve-Qq; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:32:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:31:57 -0500 From: John C Klensin To: Martin Duerst , ima@ietf.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20090109180627.08419370@localhost> References: <3A7D686AA42A9D33730D7143@PST.jck.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20090109180627.08419370@localhost> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [EAI] IETF Last Call comment on downgrade X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ima-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --On Friday, January 09, 2009 18:09 +0900 Martin Duerst wrote: > Hello John, Sorry for not being clear. This is really an issue about technical tradeoffs, rather than a procedural one, but I think it is useful to think/talk about it right now in procedural terms.. > As far as I'm aware of, all the documents from this WG > so far have been published as experimental (or informational > for those that don't specify any kind of protocol or format). Yes. I note that documents from an IETF WG are published as Experimental for at least two different reasons: (i) To get a chance to demonstrate that they work, for any values of "work" that may be relevant. The expectation is that once that demonstration completes, the results can be evaluated, the protocols adjusted as needed, and decisions made that would lead to standards-track publication of a revision/update. (ii) To publish them as what, in another SDO, are jokingly referred to as "substandards" --not ready for standardization-- with the expectation that they will never advance further. I certainly believe that the entire EAI package, including downgrade, falls into the first group. > Are you saying that downgrade should be even more > experimental than experimental? Or that you think > that while the others should go to proposed in a > next round, that shouldn't apply to downgrade? > Or what? I take the classification of "experimental" seriously -- as an opportunity to get a specification (or collection of specifications) published in solid, public, form to assist in generating interoperable implementations and testing and evaluating them. I think those evaluations actually ought to occur and that it is a flaw in the IETF procedures that experimental documents do not require a statement about evaluation periods... and an automatic move to Historic if the evaluations are not completed and published within a set period of time. A corollary to that is that I don't believe the second group above should exist at all. However, please note that I have been making both of those suggestions for around 20 years now and have gotten nowhere -- for better or worse, we are stuck with ad hoc arrangements in which some Experimental specifications are evaluated much more carefully than others. What I'm suggesting is that Downgrade --and the EAI suite including Downgrade-- should be evaluated very carefully and that the evaluation should include what I see as a very explicit tradeoff between: (1) With Downgrade in its present form, some messages are going to get through that would not otherwise go through. Some subset of those messages are going to arrive without information loss and the recipient (or agents intermediate between the delivery MTA and the recipient) will be able to deduce and reconstruct the form of the original message. We don't know how many messages that would otherwise be undeliverable will get through as a result of having Downgrade, nor do we know what level of information loss will occur. We also don't know how much the ">" will leak into non-EAI environments (although experience with email predicts "quite a lot", nor what problems such leakage will cause. The answers to those questions are obviously part of the experiment. (2) Without Downgrade in its present form, implementation of EAI becomes easier, perhaps even vastly easier. The ">" syntax disappears, as does the collection of "Downgraded" headers, so we don't need to worry about their effects or about long-term clutter to the protocols or syntax. We don't know whether easier and less complex implementation will lead to more implementations, earlier implementations, or to fewer bugs and interoperability problems than would occur with those full-Downgrade implementations. We also don't know how many implementations will choose the shortcut path -- rejecting messages requiring downgrading rather than going through the downgrade procedure. The answers to those questions may be, and are likely to remain, more speculative than those above, but they are also obviously part of the experiment. That is a more or less classic engineering design tradeoff issue, with one set of advantages being on a somewhat different scale than the other, i.e., putting them on a single scale is hard or impossible without biasing the outcome. It is also typical of such tradeoffs in the real world, because full information is simply not available or likely to become available. We just need to gather what information we can and make a educated guesses. I am suggesting that the tradeoff is important and that those guesses should be as educated, and data-based, as possible. When we got started with the EAI work, our hypothesis was that Downgrading was both necessary and reasonably straightforward. We've learned that it was less straightforward than we expected, that the number of cases in which it could be applied were fewer than expected (e.g., the requirement that all non-ASCII addresses be associated with alternate forms). We also had not seriously considered the mailing list issues, nor anticipated the conclusion we seem to have reached. On the other side of things, we probably have a better understanding of the ways in which the need to downgrade can, and cannot, be controlled by careful and thoughtful system configuration. Give that, the question of "is this particular feature really worth the trouble" is one that we have properly not asked since EAI was chartered. I believe that it is one that we should start asking seriously as soon as Downgrade is approved, with the complexity of that specification and its interactions with the other specifications as part of the data. My note was simply a plea that the community ask it and a heads-up that the question was important. That doesn't make Downgrade any different from any other Experimental spec except that someone has explicitly proposed evaluation criteria other than "implement it and see if it interworks with cooperating implementations". Now, if what you are really asking about is my personal opinion... At this point, I believe we would be better off * without Downgrade as specified * pushing for rapid implementation and deployment of an internationalized email solution that is free of in-transit downgrading and the associated syntax, header, digital signature, etc., issues * concentrating our efforts on address downgrading procedures that could be applied at the endpoints -- the sending MUA or submission MTA and after SMTP final delivery, rather than figuring out how to make in-transit work * getting more specific about the cases in which in-transit downgrading might be needed and how they can best be avoided by careful configuration. Some of those statements argue strongly for revisiting and publishing the Scenarios document, perhaps in the form of an "operational hints" document. But those are just personal beliefs. Worse, they are based on some speculative reasoning. My main interest at this point is a careful and fair experimental and evaluation process that gives us more information about risks and tradeoffs. Does that answer your question? john _______________________________________________ IMA mailing list IMA@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From ima-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jan 20 01:00:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima-archive@megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ima-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F80A28C124; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:00:04 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ima@ietf.org Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 1C2D63A6BAB; Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:00:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090120090002.1C2D63A6BAB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:00:02 -0800 (PST) Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-11.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ima-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. Title : Downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization Author(s) : K. Fujiwara, Y. Yoneya Filename : draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-11.txt Pages : 27 Date : 2009-01-20 Traditional mail systems handle only ASCII characters in SMTP envelope and mail header fields. The Email Address Internationalization (UTF8SMTP) extension allows UTF-8 characters in SMTP envelope and mail header fields. To avoid rejecting internationalized Email messages when a server in the delivery path does not support the UTF8SMTP extension, some sort of converting mechanism is required. This document describes a downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization. Note that this is a way to downgrade, not tunnel. There is no associated up-conversion mechanism, although internationalized email clients might use original internationalized addresses or other data when displaying or replying to downgraded messages. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-11.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-11.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-01-20005940.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart 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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Mar 3 01:30:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietf.org Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 6A70B3A6971; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 01:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090303093001.6A70B3A6971@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 01:30:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-12.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 09:30:01 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. Title : Downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization Author(s) : K. Fujiwara, Y. Yoneya Filename : draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-12.txt Pages : 28 Date : 2009-03-03 Traditional mail systems handle only ASCII characters in SMTP envelope and mail header fields. The Email Address Internationalization (UTF8SMTP) extension allows UTF-8 characters in SMTP envelope and mail header fields. To avoid rejecting internationalized Email messages when a server in the delivery path does not support the UTF8SMTP extension, some sort of converting mechanism is required. This document describes a downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization. Note that this is a way to downgrade, not tunnel. There is no associated up-conversion mechanism, although internationalized email clients might use original internationalized addresses or other data when displaying or replying to downgraded messages. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-12.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-12.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-03-03011538.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Thu Mar 5 09:46:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietf.org Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 13D7E28C3C6; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:46:06 -0800 (PST) X-idtracker: yes From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: <20090305174607.13D7E28C3C6@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:46:07 -0800 (PST) Cc: Internet Architecture Board , eai mailing list , eai chair , RFC Editor Subject: [EAI] Document Action: 'Downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization' to Experimental RFC X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:46:07 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization ' as an Experimental RFC This document is the product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Chris Newman and Lisa Dusseault. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-12.txt Technical Summary This document specifies a downgrading procedure for messages that are extended according to the EAI UTF8SMTP extension, when these are being sent to a recipient MTA that does not support the UTF8SMTP extension. Working Group Summary The WG came to consensus on this document. Document Quality The document has been reviewed in the WG. From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Mar 9 02:45:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietf.org Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 3D8D23A6C0D; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 02:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090309094502.3D8D23A6C0D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 02:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-mailto-01.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. Title : An update to the mailto URI scheme for Email Address Internationalization Author(s) : M. Duerst Filename : draft-ietf-eai-mailto-01.txt Pages : 6 Date : 2009-03-09 This document updates the definition of the mailto: URI Scheme for use with internationalized email addresses. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-mailto-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-eai-mailto-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-03-09024348.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Mon Mar 9 04:45:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@ietf.org Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 404F33A6C79; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090309114502.404F33A6C79@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-01.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:45:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. Title : Displaying Downgraded Messages for Email Address Internationalization Author(s) : K. Fujiwara Filename : draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-01.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2009-03-09 This document describes how to display downgraded messages which originally contain internationalized E-mail addresses or internationalized header fields. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-01.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-03-09043711.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From harald@alvestrand.no Wed Mar 11 07:08:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D533A68AF for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:08:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dm4inAi8Tyz for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:08:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9ED28C214 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6F3639E0BB for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:09:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no 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 sPvQw0LYcf+g for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:09:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from hta-warp.trd.corp.google.com (unknown [195.18.164.170]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2662E39E2CF for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:09:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49B7C605.50108@alvestrand.no> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:09:09 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: EAI WG Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------000406050404090006030605" Subject: [EAI] [Fwd: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-eai-downgrade] X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:08:50 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000406050404090006030605 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Another milestone passed (at last)! --------------000406050404090006030605 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-eai-downgrade.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename*0="ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-eai-downgrade.eml" Return-Path: Received: from murder ([unix socket]) by eikenes (Cyrus v2.2.13-Debian-2.2.13-13ubuntu3) with LMTPA; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:46:48 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05BF39E1ED for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:46:48 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no 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 dcqXoN9H00om for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:46:48 +0100 (CET) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.8 Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [194.146.105.14]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C0B339E04E for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:46:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.ietf.org ([2001:1890:1112:1::20]:39552) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LfHed-00009M-La; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 18:46:44 +0100 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 30) id 075ED28C40B; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:46:06 -0800 (PST) From: The IESG To: eai-chairs@tools.ietf.org, draft-ietf-eai-downgrade@tools.ietf.org Reply-To: ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org Message-Id: <20090305174607.075ED28C40B@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:46:07 -0800 (PST) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:1890:1112:1::20 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: draft-ietf-eai-downgrade@tools.ietf.org, eai-chairs@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: wwwrun@core3.amsl.com Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-eai-downgrade X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on merlot.tools.ietf.org) IESG has approved and state has been changed to 'Approved-Announcement sent' by Amy Vezza. ID Tracker URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/?command=view_id&dTag=14708&rfc_flag=0 --------------000406050404090006030605-- From tony@att.com Sat Mar 21 22:20:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37943A6AC4 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.929, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGiHWMy-HLJB for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:20:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail129.messagelabs.com (mail129.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.147]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9B323A6AA7 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:20:08 -0700 (PDT) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: tony@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1237699255!29474815!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.54] Received: (qmail 23520 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2009 05:20:56 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp7.sbc.com (HELO mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.54) by server-8.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 22 Mar 2009 05:20:56 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2M5Ktpf005284 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:20:55 -0400 Received: from alph001.aldc.att.com (alph001.aldc.att.com [135.53.7.26]) by mlpi135.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2M5KpdA005266 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:20:51 -0400 Received: from aldc.att.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n2M5Kp1O021356 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:20:51 -0400 Received: from maillennium.att.com (mailgw1.maillennium.att.com [135.25.114.99]) by alph001.aldc.att.com (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n2M5Klsg021340 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:20:48 -0400 Received: from [135.70.208.169] (vpn-135-70-208-169.vpn.east.att.com[135.70.208.169](untrusted sender)) by maillennium.att.com (mailgw1) with ESMTP id <20090322052046gw1000u63be> (Authid: tony); Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:20:47 +0000 Message-ID: <49C5CAAE.9000806@att.com> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:20:46 -0400 From: Tony Hansen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ietf-smtp@imc.org, ietf-822 mailing list , IMAP Protocol Interest List , IMAP Extensions WG , EAI WG X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:20:09 -0000 The YAM (Yet Another Mail) Working Group is having its first meeting this Thursday at 3:10pm. The first part of the charter is reproduced here. The full charter text can be found at http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/YamCharter Tony Hansen co-chair YAM will focus strictly on advancing email-related specifications for which the community already has some years of experience with deployment and interoperability. Its function is not to reopen or reconsider protocols -- if a specification is found to need significant technical work, YAM will remove it from the WG's agenda, optionally making a recommendation to the community about how, or if, it should be processed. This charter's scope of work is the set of email-related RFCs that are currently at Draft Standard. Each document will be examined, along with its errata, and a recommendation made as to whether it should be advanced to Full Standard, republished at Draft Standard or Proposed Standard, or moved to Historic. This working group will not work further on documents that are to be republished at Draft Standard or Proposed Standard. From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com Mon Mar 23 10:34:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F9283A6BAF for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:34:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6kiBnogTVvzx for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6995F3A67E2 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:34:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:34:54 -0700 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.142]) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.79.178]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:34:54 -0700 From: "Shawn Steele (???)" To: "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) Thread-Index: AQHJq92ryEnSpPdXkUi6MmJGvnvqDw== Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:34:03 +0000 Message-ID: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:34:05 -0000 Can someone tell me you YAM relates to IMA/EAI? Eg: Are they going to cons= ider the direction of EAI when considering if these drafts should become st= andards? I could easily imagine that some should have SHOULDs encouraging UTF-8 or a= t least awareness of international limitations... -Shawn From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Mon Mar 23 10:49:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C336B3A6BF4 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kZvvxJPa0A81 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:49:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECA43A67E2 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.20.248] (dhcp-14f8.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.20.248]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:50:47 +0000 Message-ID: <49C7CBE5.8020103@isode.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:50:29 -0700 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: Shawn Steele References: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:49:58 -0000 Hi Shawn, Shawn Steele (???) wrote: >Can someone tell me you YAM relates to IMA/EAI? Eg: Are they going to consider the direction of EAI when considering if these drafts should become standards? > > No, I don't think YAM will consider any EAI documents, until EAI documents become Proposed Standards. But naturally, there is big overlap in participation between EAI and YAM, so I think the right thing would happen. Also YAM is not tasked to do any syntactic changes to existing email RFCs. >I could easily imagine that some should have SHOULDs encouraging UTF-8 or at least awareness of international limitations... > This is in a gray area, but it would be worth raising in the YAM BOF. From Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com Mon Mar 23 18:45:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8C03A6C83 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:45:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.535 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvB1cvJDIlnG for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mgw-mx09.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.105.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49BDD3A6C7D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2O1jU5T020722; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:45:48 -0500 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:45:42 +0200 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:45:42 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:45:37 +0200 Received: from nok-am1mhub-07.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.14) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:45:34 +0100 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.89]) by nok-am1mhub-07.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.14]) with mapi; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:45:33 +0100 From: To: , Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 02:45:31 +0100 Thread-Topic: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) Thread-Index: Acmr3/Srq8S/madER4u2k4zAJaslPwAQebYw Message-ID: <913D54FAAD0B4F40A6C67321B4091B1B309B2F1FF2@NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <49C7CBE5.8020103@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <49C7CBE5.8020103@isode.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2009 01:45:37.0350 (UTC) FILETIME=[3AE19E60:01C9AC22] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:45:03 -0000 >>I could easily imagine that some should have SHOULDs=20 >encouraging UTF-8 or at least awareness of international limitations... >> >This is in a gray area, but it would be worth raising in the YAM BOF. +1 I wonder: Is a standard with "international limitations" allowed to be prom= oted to Full Standard? But, let's pick it up during the BOF. From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com Mon Mar 23 18:48:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED5228C29E for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HN9ziScPQLTu for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D4228C29D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:48:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.180) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:48:58 -0700 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.1.142]) by TK5EX14MLTC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:48:57 -0700 From: "Shawn Steele (???)" To: "Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com" , "alexey.melnikov@isode.com" Thread-Topic: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) Thread-Index: AQHJrCKULzhiL4jtYkuUMdXfd3C6MI/E7Psw Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:48:57 +0000 Message-ID: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4BBDA@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <49C7CBE5.8020103@isode.com> <913D54FAAD0B4F40A6C67321B4091B1B309B2F1FF2@NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <913D54FAAD0B4F40A6C67321B4091B1B309B2F1FF2@NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "ima@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:48:08 -0000 I am unable to participate, but it'd be nice if this was discussed :) Thanks, Shawn -----Original Message----- From: Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com [mailto:Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:46 PM To: alexey.melnikov@isode.com; Shawn Steele (???) Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: RE: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony = Hansen) >>I could easily imagine that some should have SHOULDs >encouraging UTF-8 or at least awareness of international limitations... >> >This is in a gray area, but it would be worth raising in the YAM BOF. +1 I wonder: Is a standard with "international limitations" allowed to be prom= oted to Full Standard? But, let's pick it up during the BOF. From sm@resistor.net Mon Mar 23 21:41:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A02D3A6ABE for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.61 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.011, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gtJz808baKQ7 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221873A6AF4 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Alpha0/8.14.4.Alpha0) with ESMTP id n2O4flUZ022157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1237869717; x=1237956117; bh=OhGSVgYeUKKdhJNOMSY9OsvIirCpRmwn1prab9kkn1M=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=HwDrHmSPhYpbuHZxfatGhbcGeDe/9iOvyggbLvneUadFVKHOpL1a409XXJA+LKL9x sdx3CT+6pADIJv+jADjaWUQlOZWvvHKDVAn5O5jeRrTUKpiLR5ZFeId5iy3erBtYfZ rnc8SR5agK2dyhH/9ADhDlnPj6pBLLXHKXzE3X8w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=egOg/CqYqtn6bKfaApCirTeqyNzC4nt0IGyoPzDoihRD0uoJWmM9bJpifLH28Z/wE JB4BKnLITdpfglbT3HQXy82vCpl/0KFPVHwBFghJPcsaKuUdAnlxY4JSZXJD2tJJune 04R+2BFkpul3P6o13idvgbm/dIcAa9oDxRma2Kw= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090323210220.032c5be8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:38:10 -0700 To: Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com From: SM In-Reply-To: <913D54FAAD0B4F40A6C67321B4091B1B309B2F1FF2@NOK-EUMSG-04.mg dnok.nokia.com> References: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <49C7CBE5.8020103@isode.com> <913D54FAAD0B4F40A6C67321B4091B1B309B2F1FF2@NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:41:09 -0000 At 18:45 23-03-2009, Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com wrote: >I wonder: Is a standard with "international limitations" allowed to >be promoted to Full Standard? STD 10, for example, is a widely deployed protocol and has been around for over a decade. As there is already a WG working on email internationalization, the "standard with international limitations" isn't a compelling reason against promoting the Draft Standards identified by the YAM WG to Full Standard. Regards, -sm From harald@alvestrand.no Wed Mar 25 11:18:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04EB93A6D71 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:18:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wcP5op0c0gPp for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:18:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F2A3A67B4 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BED539E0BB; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:19:09 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no 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 RZ3sUl6VMBVt; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:19:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from [130.129.17.218] (dhcp-11da.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.17.218]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB5539E290; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:19:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49CA7594.9050602@alvestrand.no> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:19:00 +0100 From: Harald Alvestrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090318) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: SM References: <11F9CE570E37194880268938416A34370BC4B4EC@TK5EX14MBXC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <49C7CBE5.8020103@isode.com> <913D54FAAD0B4F40A6C67321B4091B1B309B2F1FF2@NOK-EUMSG-04.mgdnok.nokia.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20090323210220.032c5be8@resistor.net> In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20090323210220.032c5be8@resistor.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] YAM (Yet Another Mail) WG Meeting/BOF on Thursday (Tony Hansen) X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:18:18 -0000 SM wrote: > At 18:45 23-03-2009, Zoltan.Ordogh@nokia.com wrote: >> I wonder: Is a standard with "international limitations" allowed to >> be promoted to Full Standard? > > STD 10, for example, is a widely deployed protocol and has been around > for over a decade. As there is already a WG working on email > internationalization, the "standard with international limitations" > isn't a compelling reason against promoting the Draft Standards > identified by the YAM WG to Full Standard. Yes, 30 years is more than a decade :-) (RFC 733 is from Novemer 1977) From rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Tue Mar 31 16:09:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322E328C1BA; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:09:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.225 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.225 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.374, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_DEF_WHITELIST=-15] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fFkdT55QUuRo; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:09:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bosco.isi.edu (bosco.isi.edu [128.9.168.207]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C819B28C1C4; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:09:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bosco.isi.edu (Postfix, from userid 70) id 792C926B6E8; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:09:43 -0700 (PDT) To: ietf-announce@ietf.org, rfc-dist@rfc-editor.org From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Message-Id: <20090331230943.792C926B6E8@bosco.isi.edu> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Cc: ima@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [EAI] RFC 5504 on Downgrading Mechanism for Email Address Internationalization X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:09:23 -0000 A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5504 Title: Downgrading Mechanism for Email Address Internationalization Author: K. Fujiwara, Ed., Y. Yoneya, Ed. Status: Experimental Date: March 2009 Mailbox: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp, yone@jprs.co.jp Pages: 24 Characters: 48894 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag: draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-12.txt URL: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5504.txt Traditional mail systems handle only ASCII characters in SMTP envelope and mail header fields. The Email Address Internationalization (UTF8SMTP) extension allows UTF-8 characters in SMTP envelope and mail header fields. To avoid rejecting internationalized email messages when a server in the delivery path does not support the UTF8SMTP extension, some sort of converting mechanism is required. This document describes a downgrading mechanism for Email Address Internationalization. Note that this is a way to downgrade, not tunnel. There is no associated up-conversion mechanism, although internationalized email clients might use original internationalized addresses or other data when displaying or replying to downgraded messages. This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. This document is a product of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. EXPERIMENTAL: This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team USC/Information Sciences Institute