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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 04 June 2021 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 C7C063A07A2 for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 Bm9PLb-Em0Pc for <ietf-smtp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bee.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (bee.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EA213A199C for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:12:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509F25420CA for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:12:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout4.hostinger.io (100-96-17-37.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.17.37]) (Authenticated sender: hostingeremail) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 78C785420FC for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:12:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
Received: from nl-srv-smtpout4.hostinger.io ([UNAVAILABLE]. [145.14.159.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256) by 100.96.17.37 (trex/6.2.1); Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:12:46 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: hostingeremail|x-authsender|dhc@dcrocker.net
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: hostingeremail
X-Fumbling-Hook: 2c1c3bd9704dff17_1622826766003_3828783012
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1622826766003:3823384458
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1622826766003
Received: from [192.168.0.106] (c-24-130-62-181.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [24.130.62.181]) (Authenticated sender: dhc@dcrocker.net) by nl-srv-smtpout4.hostinger.io (smtp.hostinger.com) with ESMTPSA id 9B6E831A0C88 for <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:12:43 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=hostingermail-a; t=1622826763; bh=UOQvwrELrVN/As2BsVUGC712/N0gzh3DvG5FIGP8li0=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=o0QpD4XQW1a7BdWmBsGIJKUjLbIa1fp5asMn0hrKw0H67l0npyORuFTMtF+WZnHEm yHCDdDh+QmJOqJ5aQRJgl0qQKqCguQRfntsiVZeJ+AT9bamL3y5IztLTIno89BKi14 8doinRtkoNGdqlH5ivG+03wbMDaEs2iACoxYAMElzfzcdsnxy8vaYmFkqVJVRMLCy1 aAwhU4uKRrsiOpYfwEcUmg8jd3x1h+jG2T2UpQ/wT+u/4ZtJ9bjUjA2RZmlhDO4h6U cMzmIfOYbLE62AY48iFA+gKzPobYMzuyK601427ac36qGZuQAlWbEwQKzM/FY0dCCj toMkZdrnYO/qQ==
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
To: ietf-smtp <ietf-smtp@ietf.org>
References: <20210525182946.079748B872C@ary.qy> <EFDA46E00EFF0E48802D046A@PSB> <2021052700585304660213@cnnic.cn> <YK7E1dBKneP8B8Ib@straasha.imrryr.org> <01RZNI90M6SS0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <E23639ADA7487360C9B5A93C@PSB> <01RZPUQVP8TU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <e9a6ce3e-3f83-a221-d132-fd021a2b5002@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 10:12:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01RZPUQVP8TU0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-smtp/gvjdmGelIpXsLOG0S6jyOEgfTmA>
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: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 17:12:54 -0000

> But in the bigger picture, every time you use a U-label or a UTF-8 local-part,
> you make it more difficult to deal with the case when you hit a point where the
> SMTPUTF8 extension isn't available.
> 
> We have two downgrading options defined, but neither of them is terribly
> attractive.
> 
> What this argues for is to eliminate as much use of the extension as you
> possibly can. And if that means using A-labels, or even dropping the use of
> "for" clauses - which are optional anyhow - so be it.


If I've read this thread correct, the main argument for the original 
SHOULD was convenient display to (end) users.  While that's a laudable 
goal, it's quite different from a typical protocol mandate to achieve 
interoperability.

Further, it appears that implementers have chosen to widely ignore the 
SHOULD, in favor of A-labels.  Again, this does not hurt 
interoperability, but makes reading by /some/ humans more challenging, 
though not impossible.  Even further, it appears that A-labels work well 
for some other readers.

My impression is that the SHOULD represented idealism over simple 
pragmatism.

The basic work was to extend an existing service to support a wider 
range of characters.  With some consistency, that kind of task fares 
much better with an overlay solution.  (Think MIME.)  A-labels are an 
overlay.  U-labels are not.

If the operational industry has voted with its code and clearly prefers 
A-labels, than the SHOULD is an especially counter-productive choice, 
since it creates debate about the specification where, really, it has no 
benefit.  I suspect MAY is the better choice.  It gives permission and 
even implicit encouragement, but eliminates the standards tension caused 
by not using U-labels.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net