Re: [EAI] [eai] #11: Capture the scenario of "SHOULD not use UTF-8 in Message-ID" for future advice draft

On 2011-09-19, at 2:38 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:

> On 19 September 2011 19:25, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
>> A simple question is why this juggling is appropriate here but
>> not in the rest of the core drafts, including this one?
> 
> The technical problems of "folks want to use local parts in their
> scripts and languages" vs. "messages need a unique part to form a
> globally unique message ID" are _technically_ unrelated.
> 
> That unique@ and local@ are _historically_ almost the same syntax
> has no _technical_ reason I'm aware of.  Besides you would know it
> better.  For the purposes of NetNews message IDs are as important
> as say IP for the purposes of TCP.
> 
> That's as simple as 1-2-3.  Don't waste time with MAYs or SHOULDs,
> anything below a MUST is "broken by design", details don't matter,
> or make it worse.

Hi Frank,

The recent WG rough consensus agreed to allow UTF-8 in Message-ID.  

When we look into EAI advice draft in future, would you be interest to write about advice dealing with NNTP, or better (IMHO), look into -bis or extension RFC for NNTP in a new WG/BOF?

Thanks
Joseph, co-chair of EAI

> 
> -Frank
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima