Subject: [EAI] draft-ietf-eai-5738bis (IMAP)) UTF8=* issues

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:45:46 -0500

Hi.

Barry, Pete, Joseph, and I met early in the week and have the
following proposal to resolve the IMAP UTF8=* issue.

(1) The server may advertise either UTF8=ACCEPT or UTF8=ONLY (no
change).  

(2) The client may announce either "ENABLE UTF8=ACCEPT" or
nothing (there is no "ENABLE UTF8=ONLY" option; if sent, it is
likely to be ignored by the server).

(3) If the server announces "UTF8=ONLY", a client that does not
support UTF-8 header material but recognizes the capability
announcement is expected to abandon the connection.  More
important, a client that sends almost any command other than
"ENABLE UTF8=ACCEPT" will get an error response from the server.

In other words, a server announcement of UTF8=ONLY is equivalent
to "this server won't tolerate legacy clients at all".  "Doesn't
support downgrading" is a corollary to that.

Details are in the actual -11 text, which should be posted
shortly.

The agenda for Friday is a discussion of this change and, unless
other proposals are posted, the motivation for it and its
approval.  Anyone wanting to disagree with the change and,
especially, to make a different proposal, should get their
concerns and proposal posted to this list by tomorrow evening.
That schedule is chosen to allow anyone who is not in Atlanta to
post their comments to the list on Thursday so that we can
discuss them Friday morning.

Note that this issue has been discussed sufficiently and is
posted to the mailing list now.  My expectation is that the WG
will reach a conclusion Friday morning, that Joseph or I will
post a summary sometime Friday, and that we will then take
objections from the list, if any, until Monday (cutoff at 2359
UT Monday evening).  If there are no significant objections, we
will hand this document back to the ADs for what I hope will be
final IESG signoff.

  best,
    john

---

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:55:19 +0900

I haven't seen any comments on this on the mailing list (there may have 
been plenty in the hallways in Atlanta). I may not have much time to 
check my mail before the actual meeting.

I support the direction as explained below. It makes a very good 
distinction between "only the new way" (suited for closed lock-step 
upgrade situations) and "old or new is okay" (ideal for mixed deployment 
situations).

Regards,   Martin.

On 2012/11/07 6:45, John C Klensin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>