Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Wed, 26 May 2021 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3459A3A0BA9 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 May 2021 10:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 uj8cZn-Ed5Ul for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF83D3A0B9D for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 May 2021 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TestYJ-PC (unknown [159.226.7.2]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0AJEOSEfq5gZCVOAA--.68S2; Thu, 27 May 2021 00:59:48 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 00:59:53 +0800
From: "Jiankang Yao" <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>, "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <20210525182946.079748B872C@ary.qy>, <EFDA46E00EFF0E48802D046A@PSB>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.20.273[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2021052700585304660213@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart505540571212_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0AJEOSEfq5gZCVOAA--.68S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7CFWfXFyDtr13KF1UAr1UZFb_yoW8Zw1UpF W5WFnFkr48Jr4Ikrn7tr1xZFW2yr4kJFsrJrn8WFWvvws8GF9ayFWftr4FkrZrCr409r12 qr42vFZ8Z3sYvFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUPlb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVW8JVWxJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4 A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVCF0I0E 4I0vr24l5I8CrVC2j2CEjI02ccxYII8I67AEr4CY67k08wAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJV WUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAK I48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAYjxAxZF0Ex2IqxwCY02Avz4vE14v_Jw CF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCFx2IqxVCFs4IE7xkEbVWUJVW8JwC20s026c02F40E14v26r10 6r1rMI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jrv_JF1lIxkGc2Ij64 vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_ Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rW3Jr0E3s1lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIx AIcVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCE64xvF2IEb7IF0Fy7YxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZF pf9x07b2qXdUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: x1dryyw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/VkEQs7PKOMdEQpyn1Nc4Lj2YLt8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?
X-BeenThere: ietf-smtp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Simple Mail Transfer Protocol \(SMTP\) \[RFC 821, RFC 2821, RFC 5321\]" <ietf-smtp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-smtp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp>, <mailto:ietf-smtp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 17:00:03 -0000

 
From: John C Klensin
Date: 2021-05-26 03:34
To: John Levine; ietf-smtp
Subject: Re: [ietf-smtp] Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?
 
 
> 
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 14:29 -0400 John Levine
> <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> 
> > It appears that John C Klensin  <john-ietf@jck.com> said:
> >> It would certainly be appropriate to either revise the spec
> >> or, better from my point of view, create a short applicability
> >> statement that explains the reasoning behind the SHOULD and
> >> the circumstances under which it would be sensible to ignore
> >> it. ...
> > 
> >> The thing that sometimes gets lost in "let's make the spec
> >> conform to what implementations are doing" discussions in this
> >> area is that there is an assumption behind the whole
> >> collection of SMTPUTF8 specs, namely that the world really
> >> wanted non-ASCII addressing and header field values. ...
> > 
> > This may seem like splitting hairs but there is a difference
> > between header fields that users see and fields that they
> > don't.  Message-IDs are still generally ASCII in EAI messages,
> > and I don't see any benefit from making the domain names in
> > trace headers U-labels rather than A-labels.
> > 
> > I'm not getting any pushback on Return-Path which really does
> > need to be UTF-8 is it's an EAI address.  I think the few MTAs
> > that put a FOR clause in the Received header put EAI addresses
> > there, too.
> 
> I recognize the distinction while also realizing that, as you
> know, things often leak.  My recollection (if Jiankang is
> following this, his memory is probably better than mine) 
>is that
> the WG explicitly discussed the issue and concluded that
> U-labels were a better idea than A-labels.  
> 

Yes, I think so. The EAI WG discussed this issue.
Section 3.7.3. Trace Information  encourages to use UTF-8 form.
One reason I think is that trace information will be put into header for human reading. UTF-8 is better for human reading.
A-label is ugly for human reading, but ok for machine reading.


Best Regards
Jiankang Yao