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

Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> Sun, 07 August 2016 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
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 102F012D098 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 05:43:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gulbrandsen.priv.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 JNy0_x13bzCK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 05:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from strange.aox.org (strange.aox.org [80.244.248.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E51412B01C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 05:42:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by strange.aox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520EEFA0078; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 12:42:55 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gulbrandsen.priv.no; s=mail; t=1470573775; bh=yy6H/x+gb+xtv00r+8J/B0ITxand8ZlD3/30xMRgHTo=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:From; b=H7SKGVaOlFi4EoVc/SMDp5IAjsmceWGt4KN7vZtO4YMIJ66MLJ1cxNYITba7x+R39 P0Mkgw5qu+E9U2UBNNCfYLUon+NNmAPO+MEOF9slLEr+++K1inucRx3ubptzeKBhiM AMH0D3M8J081QwXqt0F4S7G7wmPcv6neOCF7Emow=
Received: from arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no by fri.gulbrandsen.priv.no (Archiveopteryx 3.2.0) with esmtpsa id 1470573774-25251-25249/12/538; Sun, 7 Aug 2016 12:42:54 +0000
From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 16:42:51 +0400
Message-Id: <8KrqSn+R2axy3201Jg39KsR/UFJb0VQwKmwzm7dpI94=.sha-256@antelope.email>
References: <CY4PR03MB2744D9D6CD59BBBC9F5C6B6082070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <65CD4EEE481E0F48F4DD6EE5@JcK-HP8200> <CY4PR03MB27441C9B96F8615399362A5282070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <B32638D4BE5FF1BBC35CD54B@JcK-HP8200>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/UgEW7JWYrbNADZCzmy0vU2J2foI>
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: Sun, 07 Aug 2016 12:43:00 -0000

How about noncommittal wording that leaves the option of using 8bit cte 
open, suggests doing that for smtputf8 and notes that there may still 
be software around that has problems with it so perhaps avoid in other 
cases? No MUST anywhere and it had a touch of realism.

Arnt