Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-leiba-5322upd-from-group-06

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I see no way to explain the narrow EAI use case in this context
>> without either dragging in a whole bunch of EAI that has no business
>> being here or leaving various things dangling.
>
> ack. mumble.
>
> So I'll suggest a bit of an amalgam, including a cross reference of the type
> I prefer to avoid:
>
>    1. State that this removes a restriction that was never essential.
>
>    2. State that the timing of this removal is to accomodate EAI and for its
> use of the now-available features, see [RFCxxxx].


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:28 AM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote
(with a large part of this distribution list removed):
>>So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII
>>text in the group name without including a replyable address?
>
> The main motivation is to provide a syntax for a non-replyable address
> in From: and Sender: headers for cases where that is appropriate.  See
> the EAI downgrade documents for a concrete example.
>
> A secondary motivation is to remove an arcane restriction that has not
> turned out to be useful in practice.

Dave and John (Levine) are both suggesting an informative reference
from this document to some piece of the EAI documents (which I guess
should be one or both of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis, Section 7, and
draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade, Section 3.2.1).

Ned and John (Klensin), can you live with that (I know it's not your
preference).  All: which (or both) should the reference be to?

Barry