From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Dec 1 02:15:01 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 5E8C83A6A30; Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:15:01 -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: <20091201101501.5E8C83A6A30@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 02:15:01 -0800 (PST) Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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, 01 Dec 2009 10:15:01 -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 : Displaying Downgraded Messages for Email Address Internationalization Author(s) : K. Fujiwara, B. Leiba Filename : draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2009-12-01 This document describes a method for displaying downgraded messages which originally contained internationalized E-mail addresses or internationalized header fields. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2010. Copyright Notice Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-12-01020150.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Wed Dec 2 04:23:23 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 5BE0628C11A for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:23:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, 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 Id8SzeisTLhH for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:23:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DE028C0EA for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 04:23:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.2.119] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 12:23:13 +0000 Message-ID: <4B165C26.5020605@isode.com> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:23:02 +0000 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: ima@ietf.org References: <20091201101501.5E8C83A6A30@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20091201101501.5E8C83A6A30@core3.amsl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:23:23 -0000 Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >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, B. Leiba > Filename : draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2009-12-01 > >This document describes a method for displaying downgraded messages >which originally contained internationalized E-mail addresses or >internationalized header fields. > > Dear WG members, I would like the WG to sanity check the new version, as this is a major rewrite of 2 sections of the document. Please send any comments by the end of December 11th. From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com Wed Dec 2 16:38:12 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 222683A6950 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:38:12 -0800 (PST) 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 NpQIDyYVvhWw for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:38:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FBB53A67B4 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:38:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:38:30 -0800 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.231]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi; Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:37:31 -0800 From: Shawn Steele To: "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt Thread-Index: Acpzrdvj0AlGPQWDTDG314oIvbdSOQ== Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 00:37:29 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:38:12 -0000 > Dear WG members, > I would like the WG to sanity check the new version, as this is a major r= ewrite of 2 sections of the document. Please send any > comments by the end= of December 11th. I guess my concern is more procedural or process oriented, however it seems= from earlier discussion that the consensus is that the downgrade as specif= ied by RFC5504 doesn't work in all cases. So that would seem to make eai-d= owngraded-display an historical footnote, and I'm not sure how much effort = it is worth spending on it? The working group seems to have moved to consi= dering other options. I'm not sure if downgraded display is required for t= he charter? I'd thought yes, but it doesn't seem to be in the 1.6 Delivera= bles section? It also seems that if it is published, that a note of the limitations that = have been discovered since RFC5504 was published should be added. Of cours= e one of the other deliverables is a "Results and evaluation of experiment"= , however it might be difficult for people that stumble upon downgraded dis= play to get to that informational RFC. I'm not trying to belittle the work involved in getting this far. I think = that the RFC5504 approach was a very valuable learning experience, and inde= ed I preferred that approach. I just think that at this point it's not wor= th perfecting that approach if we aren't going to use it, and instead focus= our time and experimentation effort on other possible solutions. -Shawn From shenshuo@cnnic.cn Thu Dec 3 01:08:15 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 48E2428C129 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 01:08:15 -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: 4.446 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, CN_BODY_35=0.339, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, 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 a+sSsuIPIIuV for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 01:08:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A2AB628C132 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 01:08:14 -0800 (PST) Received: (eyou send program); Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:06:15 +0800 Message-ID: <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: shenshuo@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo5bff9be9) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:06:15 +0800 From: =?gb2312?B?U2VhbiBTaGVuIMnyy7g=?= To: , References: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:06:22 +0800 Message-ID: <011401ca73f7$e25c8130$a7158390$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcpybziZjI2vY4QLSEO/edW2Xk02AABiFEHg Content-Language: zh-cn Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:08:15 -0000 Hi, EAI WG and Authors, I read the draft and have the a few comments. #1 Usually the "Abstract" is after "Status of this Memo" and "Copyright Notice", right before the "Table of Contents". I went back to check = previous versions and found that 01 and 02 is in right order. Wondering why this modification happened. #2 section 3.2.2 Proper alignments are needed for procedure description part. Usually no first line indent is needed for each step.=20 In step 1, substeps are numbered as step 1.a and 1.b, without indents. = But in step 4, substeps are numbered as 1, 2, ...7, with indents. The = substeps of step 4 has the same numbering as top level steps. =20 #3 section 3.2.3 I didn't understand the first sentence of this section:=20 "The Unknown Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields SHOULD be left as they are unless the MUA has special knowledge of a particular field. "=20 Also I noticed that "above" and "below" are used in a few places. These = are not necessary when you already clearly refer to the exact sections.=20 #4 section 4 The first paragraph describes a scenario that "Downgraded-From" header = field can not be reconstructed. But it's not clear then what will happen. Any security effects? The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 and rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are more = about security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security consideratioins in this document focuses more on downgraded-display. = This should be clarified. Best, Sean > -----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE----- > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: ima-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ima-bounces@ietf.org] = =B4=FA=B1=ED > Internet-Drafts@ietf.org > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2009=C4=EA12=D4=C21=C8=D5 18:15 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: i-d-announce@ietf.org > =B3=AD=CB=CD: ima@ietf.org > =D6=F7=CC=E2: [EAI] I-D = Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > Title : Displaying Downgraded Messages for Email Address > Internationalization > Author(s) : K. Fujiwara, B. Leiba > Filename : draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt > Pages : 15 > Date : 2009-12-01 >=20 > This document describes a method for displaying downgraded messages = which > originally contained internationalized E-mail addresses or internationalized > header fields. >=20 > Status of this Memo >=20 > This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions > of BCP 78 and BCP 79. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force > (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also > distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. >=20 > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months = and > may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. = It is > inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite = them > other than as "work in progress." >=20 > The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. >=20 > The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at > http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. >=20 > This Internet-Draft will expire on June 4, 2010. >=20 > Copyright Notice >=20 > Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the = document > authors. All rights reserved. >=20 > This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal = Provisions > Relating to IETF Documents > (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this > document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe = your > rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code = Components > extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text = as > described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are = provided without > warranty as described in the BSD License. >=20 > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.= txt >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. From jyee@ca.afilias.info Thu Dec 3 04:08:31 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 5D4BA3A6A03 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:08:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fwvY+qYepW+D for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:08:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606C93A6806 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 04:08:30 -0800 (PST) From: Joseph Yee To: "YAO Jiankang" In-Reply-To: <459825585.11247@cnnic.cn> X-Priority: 3 References: <459825585.11247@cnnic.cn> Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 07:08:20 -0500 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Authenticated: True Cc: EAI WG Subject: Re: [EAI] ***SPAM*** 14.01 (5) Fw: verisign plug in supports the form ASCII@IDN in the outlook express 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, 03 Dec 2009 12:08:31 -0000 I looked into another plugin (for Outlook instead of Outlook Express) from Verisign before, they don't support IDN at local-part. best, Joseph On 3-Dec-09, at 2:33 AM, YAO Jiankang wrote: > I send it a few days ago, but is regarded as the spam. :) > I just remove the spam filter rule from ima list. :) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: YAO Jiankang > To: EAI WG > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 11:28 AM > Subject: verisign plug in supports the form ASCII@IDN in the outlook > express > > > > > I just get a news from my SGNIC friend that verisign plug in has > supported the form ASCII@IDN in the outlook express. > > http://www.idnnow.com/index.jsp?lang=en > > > but not sure whether it supports the form of non-ASCII@IDN. > > > Yao Jiankang > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima From Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com Thu Dec 3 12:34:26 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 303CD3A6969 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:34:26 -0800 (PST) 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 WTZcYXj-qzQI for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF863A62C1 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:34:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:34:44 -0800 Received: from TK5EX14MBXC139.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.7.231]) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.153]) with mapi; Thu, 3 Dec 2009 12:32:37 -0800 From: Shawn Steele To: YAO Jiankang , "ima@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt Thread-Index: AQHKc+g8QAigGNiivkOI/28aRcHDnJFTxptA Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 20:32:36 +0000 Message-ID: References: <459800690.19354@cnnic.cn> <119c01ca73e8$22dee3c0$60acab73@whatisfuture> In-Reply-To: <119c01ca73e8$22dee3c0$60acab73@whatisfuture> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:34:26 -0000 >> I guess my concern is more procedural or process oriented, however >> it seems from earlier discussion that the consensus is that the=20 >> downgrade as specified by RFC5504 doesn't work in all cases. =20 > yes, it is. the test already proves it. I believe that there were serious problems maintaining the pairing once you= hit things like mailing lists and mailto: Alternatives discussed on the list were no downgrade, more partial downgrad= e, and what full downgrade would entail. RFC5504 was an attempt at full do= wngrade, but it breaks in the edge cases and ends up being partial downgrad= e :( > when can we have a discussion about recharter work? +1 :) - Shawn From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sat Dec 5 05:31:36 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 34FBF3A68E4 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:31:36 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.707 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.804, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] 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 OofbWqtBgA3O for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD8B3A6816 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:31:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.196.214] (92.40.196.214.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.196.214]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 13:31:24 +0000 Message-ID: <4B1A60A1.6070605@isode.com> Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:31:13 +0000 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: =?UTF-8?B?U2VhbiBTaGVuIOayiOeDgQ==?= References: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:31:36 -0000 Sean Shen =E6=B2=88=E7=83=81 wrote: >Hi, EAI WG and Authors, > Dear Sean, >I read the draft and have the a few comments. > Thank you for the comments. >#1 >Usually the "Abstract" is after "Status of this Memo" and "Copyright >Notice", right before the "Table of Contents". I went back to check previou= s >versions and found that 01 and 02 is in right order. Wondering why this >modification happened. > The order of sections in drafts has changed recently, so this change was=20 intended. >#2 >section 3.2.2 >Proper alignments are needed for procedure description part. Usually no >first line indent is needed for each step.=20 >In step 1, substeps are numbered as step 1.a and 1.b, without indents. But >in step 4, substeps are numbered as 1, 2, ...7, with indents. The substeps >of step 4 has the same numbering as top level steps. > Ok. I can ask RFC Editor to fix that. >#3 >section 3.2.3 >I didn't understand the first sentence of this section:=20 > "The Unknown Header Fields' Preservation Header Fields SHOULD be left > as they are unless the MUA has special knowledge of a particular > field. "=20 > =20 > Downgrade document specifies a way to preserve "unknown" header fields=20 (i.e. header fields not known to the downgrade process). This sentence=20 is trying to say that a client that understands a specific "unknown"=20 header field, may apply the procedure defined in the downgrade-display=20 document. Otherwise such header fields should be left as is. >Also I noticed that "above" and "below" are used in a few places. These are >not necessary when you already clearly refer to the exact sections. > =20 > I will let editors to comment on the rest of your comments. >#4 >section 4 >The first paragraph describes a scenario that "Downgraded-From" header fiel= d >can not be reconstructed. But it's not clear then what will happen. Any >security effects? >The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 and >rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are more about >security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security >consideratioins in this document focuses more on downgraded-display. This >should be clarified. > >Best, > >Sean > From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Sat Dec 5 05:48:06 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 85CC53A6904 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:48:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, 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 kdUyzDr+SZqb for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9453A67A4 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:48:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.196.214] (92.40.196.214.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.196.214]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 13:47:55 +0000 Message-ID: <4B1A647D.1010800@isode.com> Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:47:41 +0000 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: YAO Jiankang , Shawn Steele References: <459800690.19354@cnnic.cn> <459825275.11245@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: <459825275.11245@cnnic.cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.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: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:48:06 -0000 YAO Jiankang wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Shawn Steele" >To: >Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:37 AM >Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt > [...] >>I'm not sure if downgraded display is required for the charter? I'd thought yes, but it doesn't seem to be in the >>1.6 Deliverables section? >> >> >I think that downgraded display is not proper for the recharter. but I am not sure whether the current charter allow it. The co-chairs can decide it. > I think downgraded-display falls under "Advice for MUA implementors". Earlier WG Chairs have asked if downgraded-display should be adopted as a WG document and there was rough consensus for adopting it. From barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com Sat Dec 5 07:05:52 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 DEB183A6819 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:05:52 -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 I-GOvGcYb5A8 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:05:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ew0-f216.google.com (mail-ew0-f216.google.com [209.85.219.216]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC32E3A68A6 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:05:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so4069268ewy.15 for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:05:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NYXzDw20kbF2gC80xuiKKV4FgVp/Es7fH/D559VuQIw=; b=Hu+0/RWjS/Ehjj8LDobuCR61YGqshFI0IJkmxXlQIs/RPPRv877IqZG2/ud9aMudir BApEbJWuKqwtPEh/CcSHe9IunfmmVSIcnM8gJwdKRyfaJKO7h78/ygVdtRu5V7UX5mJu JoosA3nmdQDNkJEU0TErHuV64359HDeImxAC8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Se37Sy2LhUeqGJVXTv+kPIemsBoXcX1fDgAVzzYSQqx6mcHfY3mO28IDVu/6CUXzIS daGU1rFFbrA/ScZCI9QNP1rrDd8wPSXE2gvKTJ+MKiBf3JtIKYxgzQHTpEzCWZWMaE17 /4gPNaAQw+ewptmELuETLn4GqceeyK0uxWQ5s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.93.2 with SMTP id k2mr1586576wef.210.1260025539251; Sat, 05 Dec 2009 07:05:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4B1A60A1.6070605@isode.com> References: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> <4B1A60A1.6070605@isode.com> Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 10:05:39 -0500 Message-ID: <6c9fcc2a0912050705p78858746he6491d33a92ce395@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: ima@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: barryleiba@computer.org List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 15:05:53 -0000 > Sean Shen =E6=B2=88=E7=83=81 wrote: > >> Also I noticed that "above" and "below" are used in a few places. These >> are not necessary when you already clearly refer to the exact sections. Clarity is helpful; the use of "above" and "below", here, makes the English flow better. >> section 4 >> The first paragraph describes a scenario that "Downgraded-From" header >> field can not be reconstructed. But it's not clear then what will happen= . Any >> security effects? Hm. I think we might have lost a small bit in the re-writing. The intent is that downgraded header fields that can't be reconstructed be left as they are, and might possibly be subject to the next paragraph, about emphasizing reconstruction problems. I think I'd like to add this back in as a paragraph in section 3.1, "Considerations". How's this, as a third paragraph in 3.1?: In any case where reconstruction of a particular downgraded header field fails, both fields (the "downgraded-X" field and the "X" field) SHOULD b= e left in the message as they are. The MUA MAY choose to communicate the situation to the user (see Security Considerations). >> The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 and >> rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are more abo= ut >> security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security >> consideratioins in this document focuses more on downgraded-display. Thi= s >> should be clarified. It's common to reference security considerations in related documents, to make sure that readers understand those as well. I don't see that anything needs to be changed here. Barry From shenshuo@cnnic.cn Sun Dec 13 18:44:28 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 EE0B028C0F8 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:44:28 -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: 3.302 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.046, BAYES_50=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] 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 m8HLGPNlZ1GI for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:44:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A513A3A6883 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:44:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (eyou send program); Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:44:13 +0800 Message-ID: <460758653.18604@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: shenshuo@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo5bff9be9) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:44:13 +0800 From: =?utf-8?Q?Sean_Shen_=E6=B2=88=E7=83=81?= To: , References: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> <4B1A60A1.6070605@isode.com> <460025550.22842@cnnic.cn> In-Reply-To: <460025550.22842@cnnic.cn> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:44:14 +0800 Message-ID: <004f01ca7c67$536c4280$fa44c780$@cn> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acp1vG5muvVdePFkSbWUV534lUpGgwBJlODw Content-Language: zh-cn Subject: [EAI] =?utf-8?b?562U5aSNOiAgSS1EIEFjdGlvbjpkcmFmdC1pZXRmLWVhaS1k?= =?utf-8?q?owngraded-display-03=2Etxt?= 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, 14 Dec 2009 02:44:29 -0000 Sorry for the delayed response: > =E5=8F=91=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: ima-bounces@ietf.org = [mailto:ima-bounces@ietf.org] =E4=BB=A3=E8=A1=A8 Barry > Leiba > =E5=8F=91=E9=80=81=E6=97=B6=E9=97=B4: = 2009=E5=B9=B412=E6=9C=885=E6=97=A5 23:06 > =E6=94=B6=E4=BB=B6=E4=BA=BA: ima@ietf.org > =E4=B8=BB=E9=A2=98: Re: [EAI] I-D = Action:draft-ietf-eai-downgraded-display-03.txt >=20 > > Sean Shen =E6=B2=88=E7=83=81 wrote: > > > >> Also I noticed that "above" and "below" are used in a few places. = These > >> are not necessary when you already clearly refer to the exact = sections. >=20 > Clarity is helpful; the use of "above" and "below", here, makes the > English flow better. >=20 > >> section 4 > >> The first paragraph describes a scenario that "Downgraded-From" = header > >> field can not be reconstructed. But it's not clear then what will = happen. Any > >> security effects? >=20 > Hm. I think we might have lost a small bit in the re-writing. The > intent is that downgraded header fields that can't be reconstructed be > left as they are, and might possibly be subject to the next paragraph, > about emphasizing reconstruction problems. I think I'd like to add > this back in as a paragraph in section 3.1, "Considerations". How's > this, as a third paragraph in 3.1?: >=20 > In any case where reconstruction of a particular downgraded header = field > fails, both fields (the "downgraded-X" field and the "X" field) = SHOULD be > left in the message as they are. The MUA MAY choose to communicate > the situation to the user (see Security Considerations). [Sean] Thanks, that answered my concern. > >> The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 = and > >> rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are = more about > >> security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security > >> consideratioins in this document focuses more on = downgraded-display. This > >> should be clarified. >=20 > It's common to reference security considerations in related documents, > to make sure that readers understand those as well. I don't see that > anything needs to be changed here. It is right to refer to security considerations in 5504 and 4952. I am = saying the security considerations in different documents focus on = different aspects, it's better to explicitly say that: this section = focus on security issues of displaying downgraded messages, for security = considerations for downgrading mechanism please see .... Best,=20 Sean From barryleiba@gmail.com Sun Dec 13 19:03:10 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 5599B28C0FE for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:10 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.177 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.423, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345] 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 E6p3bT4ilcoa for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4269028C0FD for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:03:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so3064777fxm.28 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:02:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sZsKBYctmcTMAPgkbqNHZYAKzWCHpaB1CuqdvW4BEjg=; b=GhJrlne3hXPtXc8JFFOulvdG5tZbogSHmgC8fc/4KIAnt0Yk7utGioc0rQI89IyoLU AYrgJqqxdxJ03YajcujnCiQDEdVFyuqJ7Y4SAHeKhyRJhTOD4brmFsL1gpC4hNGUhmii OpgDJgGWxZ+6cEspEObk2mFMtgRZOKd+MaMx8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=aKalp17pwBYoTjAvzSC2bKyG/BYKTWYwcNs4fvMDHlwUtG7LMqi2WIx1wIt/fBzQfc fyHgi6ZbPxdzPuNaqDRM7K6EttF+XQS+f+8BaioCODZpok3KSfiCsGr4oFzx6HVSCsmw qjEPyaH1YUxh61pGiELnLq19eJEdv+2sO8pHM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com Received: by 10.102.211.35 with SMTP id j35mr1655003mug.35.1260759772723; Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:02:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <460758653.18604@cnnic.cn> References: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> <4B1A60A1.6070605@isode.com> <460025550.22842@cnnic.cn> <460758653.18604@cnnic.cn> Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:02:52 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 43a4b2101515555d Message-ID: <9abf48a60912131902g4d22aa20l4c7a5e0ad6296d1f@mail.gmail.com> From: Barry Leiba To: =?GB2312?B?U2VhbiBTaGVuIMnyy7g=?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogIEktRCBBY3Rpb246ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1lYWktZG93?= =?gb2312?b?bmdyYWRlZC1kaXNwbGF5LTAzLnR4dA==?= 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, 14 Dec 2009 03:03:10 -0000 >> >> The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 and >> >> rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are more = about >> >> security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security >> >> consideratioins in this document focuses more on downgraded-display. = This >> >> should be clarified. >> >> It's common to reference security considerations in related documents, >> to make sure that readers understand those as well. =A0I don't see that >> anything needs to be changed here. > > It is right to refer to security considerations in 5504 and 4952. I am sa= ying the > security considerations in different documents focus on different aspects= , it's > better to explicitly say that: this section focus on security issues of d= isplaying > downgraded messages, for security considerations for downgrading mechanis= m > please see .... OK, I see. Yes, fair enough. Alexey, would you add one more RFC Editor no= te?: Section 4: OLD: See "Security considerations" section in [RFC5504] and [RFC4952] for more discussion. NEW: We have focused, here, on issues with displaying downgraded messages. F= or more discussion of downgraded and internationalized messages in general,= see the "Security considerations" sections in [RFC5504] and [RFC4952]. Barry From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Mon Dec 14 03:04:31 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 3BCA828C112 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:04:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.152, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] 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 lb06rR6EQTUj for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:04:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A95E3A67F0 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 03:04:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from [92.40.83.160] (92.40.83.160.sub.mbb.three.co.uk [92.40.83.160]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:04:16 +0000 Message-ID: <4B261BAB.9050500@isode.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:04:11 +0000 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: Barry Leiba References: <459662535.27586@cnnic.cn> <459831175.11249@cnnic.cn> <4B1A60A1.6070605@isode.com> <460025550.22842@cnnic.cn> <460758653.18604@cnnic.cn> <9abf48a60912131902g4d22aa20l4c7a5e0ad6296d1f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9abf48a60912131902g4d22aa20l4c7a5e0ad6296d1f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ima@ietf.org Subject: Re: [EAI] =?utf-8?b?wrTDsMK4wrQ6ICBJLUQgQWN0aW9uOmRyYWZ0LWlldGYtZWFp?= =?utf-8?q?-downgraded-display-03=2Etxt?= 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, 14 Dec 2009 11:04:31 -0000 Barry Leiba wrote: >>>>>The last paragraph refer to "security considerations" in rfc5504 and >>>>>rfc4952. But the security considerations in those documents are more about >>>>>security issues for downgrading mechenisms. I suppose the security >>>>>consideratioins in this document focuses more on downgraded-display. This >>>>>should be clarified. >>>>> >>>>> >>>It's common to reference security considerations in related documents, >>>to make sure that readers understand those as well. I don't see that >>>anything needs to be changed here. >>> >>> >>It is right to refer to security considerations in 5504 and 4952. I am saying the >>security considerations in different documents focus on different aspects, it's >>better to explicitly say that: this section focus on security issues of displaying >>downgraded messages, for security considerations for downgrading mechanism >>please see .... >> >> >OK, I see. Yes, fair enough. Alexey, would you add one more RFC Editor note?: > >Section 4: >OLD: > See "Security considerations" section in [RFC5504] and [RFC4952] for > more discussion. >NEW: > We have focused, here, on issues with displaying downgraded messages. For > more discussion of downgraded and internationalized messages in general, see > the "Security considerations" sections in [RFC5504] and [RFC4952]. > > Ok, added. From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Mon Dec 14 13:00:22 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 151CC3A67D3 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:00:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, 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 cOpe-xL6NEN8 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490903A63EC for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:00:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from [172.16.2.182] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:00:07 +0000 Message-ID: <4B26A730.5010900@isode.com> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:59:28 +0000 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: ima@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [EAI] Appointment of the EAI WG Secretary 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, 14 Dec 2009 21:00:22 -0000 Dear WG, After talking to chairs and receiving feedback from several active WG members I've decided to appoint Jiankang Yao as the EAI WG Secretary. Best Regards, Alexey Melnikov, as an Apps Area Director.