IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: encapsulation / conversion bounce (Re: [EAI] Proposal for decision, approach for downgrading in UTF8SMTP)

Kari Hurtta <hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi> Wed, 11 October 2006 15:29 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXg15-0004E5-8W; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:29:07 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXg13-0004DZ-LE for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:29:05 -0400
Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GXg12-0006wz-C1 for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:29:05 -0400
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GXfxg-0004pZ-Bs for ima@ietf.org; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:25:36 +0200
Received: from cs181108174.pp.htv.fi ([82.181.108.174]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:25:36 +0200
Received: from hurtta+gmane by cs181108174.pp.htv.fi with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:25:36 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ima@ietf.org
From: Kari Hurtta <hurtta+gmane@siilo.fmi.fi>
Subject: Re: encapsulation / conversion bounce (Re: [EAI] Proposal for decision, approach for downgrading in UTF8SMTP)
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:16 +0300
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <5diriqq3pr.fsf_-_@Hurtta06k.keh.iki.fi>
References: <0DB08D0582395ACFD523BB3E@7AD4D3FB4841A5E367CCF211> <5d3b9wkb4o.fsf@Hurtta06k.keh.iki.fi> <452C98F0.4040802@alvestrand.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: cs181108174.pp.htv.fi
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ima-bounces@ietf.org

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> writes in gmane.ietf.ima:

> Kari,
> 
> please be specific - I can't tell what you are thinking about.
> 
> Please use the language from draft-ietf-eai-scenarios, and describe a
> specific scenario in which you think that "encapsulation strategy" may
> succeed, while "conversion strategy" requires a bounce, and explain
> why.
> 
> Note: Encapsulation by the sender will be allowed as soon as someone
> delivers on the promise to write up a draft on what the MIME part for
> an encapsulation should look like - but this isn't in the critical
> path of this effort....
> 
>                                Harald
> 

 A, an i18mail user, sends to X, an ascii user.

 Message contains protocol elements for which converting gateway is not
 aware.

 Encapsulation does not require knowing these protocol elements.

 Converting gateway need to know these protocol elements, otherwise it
 is not able convert them.   If there is no permission to drop these
 elements, it is required to bounce message.

/ Kari Hurtta


_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email