Subject: [EAI] Preliminary High-level summary of EAI Meeting Conclusions at May 14, 2012

From: Joseph Yee <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:02:44 -0400

Preliminary High-level summary of EAI Meeting Conclusions at May 14,
2012 (Interim Meeting @ Jabber)

These notes are preliminary.  Detailed minutes, with more of the
reasoning for the conclusions captured, will be posted later in the
week.

Regarding IMAP-UTF8 draft

- IMAP LANG will return language list in no specific order.

- IMAP LANG will not return 'default' in the language list.

- IMAP use ENABLE only to manage mode switch.

- UTF8 parameters dropped at SELECT, EXAMINE, LIST, LSUB, hence all of
the related responses as well

- New text suggested about client and downgrade for IMAP-UTF8 draft,
with both downgrade drafts and POP-UTF8 draft to reference to the
proposed new section.  Group at interim meeting supported this
approach.  The text follows the general outline of John Klensin's
point (7) in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04787.html

Regarding both downgrade drafts

- Neither downgrade draft will not update RFC5322, RFC3501

- Downgrade docs will not critique each other

- Dot invalid email address does not get WG consensus.  An separate
email will go to mailing list again for confirmation.

- Both downgrade drafts will publish as Proposed Standard, with PROTO
write up addressing the rationale.

Note: If we go into LC with PS as a target and IESG decides to make it
Informational after LC, we are done.  If we go in with Informational
as a target and IESG decides that community consensus calls for
Proposed Standard, we need another Last Call.  So, while there are
other reasons for PS, this pragmatic one is probably sufficient.

Regarding approach to downgrade and empty group at "From:"

- If a document is needed to "update" RFC5322 to explicitly allow
empty group syntax in "From:", Barry Leiba will do a first draft of a
"mini-doc" to that effect (rather than trying to do it in one of the
downgrading specs).   John Klensin believes that he can develop text
for the IMAP document (see above) that will make such a document
unnecessary.  Avoiding such a document has two advantages: (i) less
review and approval work for the WG and hence less time until this is
finished and (ii) We really don't want to encourage that syntax in the
inter-host SMTP environment.

Meeting adjourned at roughly 14:07 UTC, deferring the EAI-mailinglist
and EAI-MAILTO topics to the WG mailing list.

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 10:58:13 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Yee" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 3:02 AM
Subject: [EAI] Preliminary High-level summary of EAI Meeting Conclusions atMay 14, 2012

> - Neither downgrade draft will not update RFC5322, RFC3501

typos? or conclusion?

remove not and change it above to 
"Neither downgrade draft will update RFC5322, RFC3501"

Jiankang Yao

---

From: Joseph Yee <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 09:17:42 -0400

Thanks JianKang spotting the typo.

- Neither downgrade draft will update RFC5322, RFC3501

Best
Joseph

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Jiankang YAO <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima