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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 04 August 2016 20:27 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 EA75712D7FC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:27:56 -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 KEoK64esPXMp for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.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 D2BC012D800 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 13:27:52 -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 1bVPF8-000B8S-UZ; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:27:50 -0400
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 16:27:45 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <65CD4EEE481E0F48F4DD6EE5@JcK-HP8200>
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR03MB2744D9D6CD59BBBC9F5C6B6082070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY4PR03MB2744D9D6CD59BBBC9F5C6B6082070@CY4PR03MB2744.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/diTX1eFrcaJiXnF6qDAHY5qso34>
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 20:27:57 -0000

Shawn,

Thanks for taking a look.  A clarification or two below in the
hope of saving time....

--On Thursday, August 04, 2016 19:48 +0000 Shawn Steele
<Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote:

> This draft just came to my attention, so I'm probably
> missing a ton of interesting context, but I have a couple
> questions/observations:
> 
> 
> ·        This is a new mechanism, so I'd prefer it be
> dependent on other new things.  Such as depending on UTF8SMTP
> instead of designing other mechanisms for non-ASCII content.
> I'd go so far as to require UTF8SMTP as a prerequisite.

I don't see this as a new mechanism, so much as tuning of the
original MDN specifications through RFC 3798.  The SMTPUTF8
(remember we switched the term around to distinguish the
standards-track machinery from the earlier experimental specs)
MDN machinery, described in RFC 6533, is very much dependent on
and, IMO, evolutionary from, 3798.

That said, I'm quite concerned about our going, instead of a
path like the one you are suggesting which I see as

   3798 -> 6533 -> maybe 6533bis -> unified MDN spec

to

   3798 -> 6533 -> eventual 6533bis
        \
         -> 3798bis -> ...

and would see an SMTPUTF8 prerequisite to unified MDNs, or at
least a unified MDN model that didn't require handling separate
from SMTPUTF8/6533[bis?], as highly desirable in that regard.
See my longer note from earlier today for one view of the
details.

>...

best,
   john