Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321?
John C Klensin <john@jck.com> Fri, 30 October 2020 16:15 UTC
Return-Path: <john@jck.com>
X-Original-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18ndir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD5E3A0FC6; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 VwB_ePIau9nN; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:15:47 -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 C8F983A0BA6; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john@jck.com>) id 1kYX44-000DdF-N9; Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:15:44 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 12:15:39 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john@jck.com>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, yaojk@cnnic.cn, i18ndir@ietf.org
Message-ID: <305BD81F447F181D46E0C18A@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <85f936fb485d4b7c8060ad1f6e813239@verisign.com>
References: <6353e26525fa4249960a1bc1468c796d@verisign.com> <20201030091143251604110@cnnic.cn> <85f936fb485d4b7c8060ad1f6e813239@verisign.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@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18ndir/HvFIoUAk1rvwAydSPWRseHI_aW0>
Subject: Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321?
X-BeenThere: i18ndir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Directorate <i18ndir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18ndir/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18ndir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir>, <mailto:i18ndir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:15:49 -0000
Scott, In the hope of improving understanding, while Jiankang is correct and John mostly so (quibble below), the real issue goes back to the circa 1992 agreement about and introduction of the SMTP extension mechanism (see RFC 1425). The underlying problem is the need to maintain interoperability with a very broad installed base, in that case by having a server advertise the extensions it is willing to accept and then the client either using zero or more of them or, more often, announcing that it is about to use one or that a particular command should be interpreted in the context of one. If one of those extensions were, instead, to update SMTP (whether 5321, 2821, or 821 itself), the effect would to declare all existing implementations retroactively non-conforming. This applies to the need to use the extension mechanism for SMTPUTF8 because all SMTP specs prior to 6531 (and 5335) have required all-ASCII addresses. Without a server explicitly saying what amounts to "yes, I know about non-ASCII mailbox names and am able to handle them", that server would be required to respond to such an address in a MAIL or RCPT command with 500 syntax error - invalid character (see Section 2.4 of 5321) or, in the specific case of mailbox names, more likely something more like 500 syntax error - WTF [1] That situation is by no means unique to non-ASCII characters in mailbox names: the 8BITMIME extension is necessary to allow non-ASCII characters in message bodies without encoding, the BDAT one [RFC3030] is necessary to allow transmission of non-textual, line-oriented, message content (again without encoding). While some extensions just provide additional information, if most of the those so far had been allowed to update SMTP, it would have been a source of immediate, and probably disastrous, interoperability difficulties. I actually find it surprising that people in the EPP effort are asking this question because they have a glaring example of a different type of extension-type change for which special measures were taken to avoid updating the base specification and thereby obsoleting existing implementations and/or causing serious interoperability problems and that is IDNA itself. We could have done IDNs by simply updating 1034 and 1035, declaring that, henceforth, any label that had the high bit of an octet set was UTF-8. The only problem would have been that any application or database that insisted on the "preferred syntax" (which many people seem to think is required for any FQDN that represents a "host name") would break, as would binary labels [RFC2673] and any ad hoc IDN mechanisms that used a non-UTF-8 encoding (you will recall that some of those, notably one or two using ISO 8859-1, were around and deployed before IDNA was adopted). In theory, one could have done IDNs in the DNS by flagging the names somehow and then using an EDNS(0) mechanism to identify what the strings were but that would have caused problems with applications that use the DNS or allow user to see or enter names rather than just carrying out DNS operations. There is actually text in the SMTPUTF8 documents (probably in 6530 but I don't remember) about the importance of having a fallback plan to an all-ASCII if one is using non-ASCII addresses outside restricted communities. So, if there is a perceived need to do this, let's talk about how and what metadata and other supplemental information would be needed, but 5321 (or even 5321bis) are not part of the picture. Of course, this may raise the usual questions about how one finds all of the relevant specs for a particular function, but that is a much broader problem. And there is the question of whether and to what extent the SMTPUTF8 specs should be mentioned if and when the EMAILCORE WG managed to make progress on the promised A/S -- we would welcome your participation in that discussion. Finally, I've concerned about the analogy to "forks" unless that term has come to encompass instant interoperability problems as well as semi-orderly evolution that may branch out in different directions. best, john [1] Hmm. We don't have an extended status code for "WTF" or even "non-ASCII character where it doesn't belong". Maybe we should. --On Friday, October 30, 2020 12:34 +0000 "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > Understood, and thanks (to John Levine, too). > > > > Scott > > > > From: I18ndir <i18ndir-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jiankang > Yao Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:12 PM > To: Hollenbeck, Scott > <shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; i18ndir@ietf.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? > > > > Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize > the sender and know the content is safe. > > Hello Scott, > > > > According to my memory, when EAI WG discussed this issue, > the WG intentionally said that > > " > > RFC 5321, Section > 4.1.2<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1h1AbnNnUzxTw8IDVgN5FgVpgsd > 0CTn8STfGbLzwReymh3Kol6JjftpgPzoho9nhXGkUBWnhSJmov4m5bSxxfO0RT > BHqU-n5C5kja6bi4DouC5BImW_LRtEdNcqoaunUtXQplmdypd3OPJvGc3frUJo > U8Exq535tdBdDv_AEGufY6-bRFacelEZejQl8wFPzDn6lifrMDDoc4SSer4oi7 > iCi7Bc7f43EHM3DDikZ5kGlXyU0Xp8DGY1JeDaAqyD8MW4gUshzh5XrsczEzzM > yGZpWalRUgX3-3-ItyOy24DV0/https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml% > 2Frfc5321%23section-4.1.2>, defines the syntax of a <Mailbox> > entirely in terms of ASCII characters. This document > extends <Mailbox> to add support of non-ASCII characters. > " > > > > This means that it extends, but not updates. > > > > RFC5321 is a base document. RFC6531 is one of its extension. > > > > Best Regards > > _____ > > Jiankang Yao > > > > From: Hollenbeck, > Scott<mailto:shollenbeck=40verisign.com@dmarc.ietf.org> > > Date: 2020-10-28 22:17 > > To: i18ndir@ietf.org<mailto:i18ndir@ietf.org> > > Subject: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? > > Folks, I have a question about i18n-related RFC updates that I > hope you can shed some light on. > > > > We recently had a suggestion from an IETF participant to add > support for internationalized email addresses to EPP, which > has a normative reference to RFC 5322 for email address > syntax. It predates EAI, so there's nothing there to support > internationalized local-parts. We're thinking about defining > an EPP extension to add support, but the discussion on the > regext WG list got me looking at the EAI RFCs and it made me > wonder why they don't formally (in the Datatracker sense) > update their predecessors. For example, Section 3.3 of RFC > 6531 says that "RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2, defines the syntax of > a <Mailbox> entirely in terms of ASCII characters. This > document extends <Mailbox> to add support of non-ASCII > characters", but there's nothing I can find in the Datatracker > to note that 6531 updates 5321. 6531 *is* described as > obsoleting 5336. Am I missing something? Shouldn't the > Datatracker note the update relationships explicitly? > > > > Scott > > > > -- > > I18ndir mailing list > > I18ndir@ietf.org<mailto:I18ndir@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18ndir > > >
- [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? John Levine
- Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? Jiankang Yao
- Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? John C Klensin
- Re: [I18ndir] EAI: RFC 6531 Updates 5321? John Levine