Re: [apps-discuss] Confused about draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-11.txt

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 04 August 2016 22:20 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CA912D890 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zuZU_skpMtxJ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C69C12D863 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bVR0E-000BKp-Sk; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:20:34 -0400
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:20:29 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <B32638D4BE5FF1BBC35CD54B@JcK-HP8200>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR03MB27441C9B96F8615399362A5282070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY4PR03MB2744D9D6CD59BBBC9F5C6B6082070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <65CD4EEE481E0F48F4DD6EE5@JcK-HP8200> <CY4PR03MB27441C9B96F8615399362A5282070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/O2voqASDMm7FpOkz6gCeEw1gjyA>
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Confused about draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-11.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 22:20:37 -0000


--On Thursday, August 04, 2016 21:05 +0000 Shawn Steele
<Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote:

> Ok, new probably wasn't a great choice.  Updated anyway, and
> I'd rather it build off of the other more recent thinking
> rather than have the potential forked path.  It's way easier
> to support an A + B + C scenario than an A, maybe-B,
> sometimes-C, perhaps all three scenario.  
> 
> Additionally it would simplify the spec (and thus the
> implementation) if you can take SMTPUTF8 as a prerequisite,
> then you can get rid of the 7-bit and other compat stuff.

Completely agree, modulo working out a plan that doesn't
immediately make the vast majority of existing implementations
non-conformant... or a community decision that is the best way
to go anyway.  Just wanted to be sure we were talking about the
same thing, which we appear to be.

best,
   john