[EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-01
Ernie Dainow <edainow@ca.afilias.info> Wed, 07 July 2010 13:41 UTC
Return-Path: <edainow@ca.afilias.info>
X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDB13A67CF for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:41:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.665
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.665 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxp58PK+0lHk for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound.afilias.info (outbound.afilias.info [69.46.124.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DB33A67B6 for <ima@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jul 2010 06:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4C348414.50109@ca.afilias.info>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 09:41:40 -0400
From: Ernie Dainow <edainow@ca.afilias.info>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ima@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated: True
Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-01
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 13:41:39 -0000
2. Role of This Specification [[anchor2: Note in Draft: Is 5825 still relevant, or is a victim of the "no in-transit downgrade" decision.??]] Comment: RFC 5825 describes how to construct the original headers from the "Downgraded-" headers. This is not relevant unless we are planning to use such headers (defined in 5504) for specifying how a final delivery SMTP server/mail store should downgrade messages that POP or IMAP can restore for UTF8 clients. 7.1 SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Address Conformance to the group of standards specified here for email transport and delivery requires implementation of the SMTP Extension specification, including recognition of the keywords associated with alternate addresses, and the UTF-8 Header specification. Comment: remove "including recognition of the keywords associated with alternate addresses". 8. Downgrading before and after SMTP Transactions While the experiments that preceded these specifications included a mechanism for passing backup ASCII addresses to intermediate relay systems and having those systems alter the relevant message header fields and substitute the addresses, Comment: add a reference to RFC 5504 for future readers who may not know anything about the Experimental drafts. 9. Downgrading in Transit [[anchor16: ... this section will simply be dropped.]] Comment: Leading up to the recharter, there was a lot of heated discussion on algorithmic/ACE transformations, even though it had been covered at the beginning of the working group. I think we need to capture some of this history or future readers of the standard will raise the same questions again. I suggest the following as a starting point. Section 2.3.11 of RFC 2321, and RFC 2821 before that, states that "due to a long history of problems when intermediate hosts have attempted to optimize transport by modifying them, the local-part MUST be interpreted and assigned semantics only by the host specified in the domain part of the address". Adherence to this rule means that a downgrade mechanism that transforms the local-part of an email address cannot be done in transit. It can only be done at the endpoints, namely by the MUA or submission server or by the final delivery SMTP server. One of the reasons for this rule has to do with legacy email systems that use source routing in the local-part of the address field. Transforming the email address destroys such routing information. There is no way a server other than the final delivery server can know, for example, whether the local-part of user%foo@example.com is a route ("user" is reached via "foo") or simply a local address. - Ernie
- [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-01 Ernie Dainow
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Ernie Dainow
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Jiankang YAO
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Joseph Yee
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Jason Nelson
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-0… Ernie Dainow
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-0… Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-0… Joseph Yee
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Shawn Steele
- [EAI] Mixed addresses (was: Re: Comments on draft… John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] Mixed addresses (was: Re: Comments on d… Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952b… Jiankang YAO