Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Confused about draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-11.txt
From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
To: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 18:20:29 -0400
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>

--On Thursday, August 04, 2016 21:05 +0000 Shawn Steele
<[email-masked]> 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