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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

Can we avoid looping back through this entire discussion again?

While I happen to agree with Ned's explanation of the scenarios,
the important thing is that we have been through them before.  

We know that there are some edge-case scenarios in which replies
to messages that require EAI facilities only because UTF-8 can
end up in slightly funny states   We know that gateways to other
environments (netnews excluded but by no means exclusively) tend
to exhibit more sensitivity to changes than would occur in a
more perfect world.  Trying to base normative text on how often
those cases will arise and how much pain they will cause --
beyond knowing that the values are non-zero -- requires ability
to predict the future with good accuracy, which is a skill I
haven't observed in the WG or the IETF generally.

Joseph has announced consensus around permitting UTF-8 in
message headers.  It seems to me that Ned's text reflects that
consensus, including pointing out that systems may want to pay
special attention to those edge cases.

Unless people think this is important enough to (further) stall
progress and have new things to add to the prior case analyses
and positions, can we move on?

   john


--On Monday, September 19, 2011 14:01 -0700 [e-mail]
wrote:

>> > Gateway operators are used to the idea that they have to do
>> > something with Message-IDs, and while UTF-8 makes this job
>> > more interesting it won't be completely different.
> 
>> Practical Mail->News gateways have to do all sorts of gross
>> stuff due to news systems enforcing syntax rules more
>> strictly than mail systems.  Munging message IDs would not be
>> any worse than what they do now.
>...