Re: [EAI] Rechartering

["Charles Lindsey" <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:37:18 +0100, Shawn Steele  
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm also concerned that the quirks of downgrade aren't going to be very  
> discoverable in an laboratory setting :(.  I don't foresee any problems  
> that can't be corrected with the current approach to downgrade, however  
> it's the unforeseen that's the problem.  At the leisurely pace it's been  
> proceeding, I'm afraid that the industry won't wait for the working  
> group, particularly if the Chinese standards proceed without the IETF WG  
> standards.

I see no problem if the Chinese were to issue a standard without  
downgrade, provided it was otherwise compatible with the format we have  
decided.

Ideally, the IETF should standardise RFC 5335 now, so that all the  
necessary headers etc get defined and we have a fixed email format (a  
plain upgrade of RFC 5332), with the downgrade standard to follow later.  
Of course that is not possible with the documents worded as they are now,  
but there must be some way to achieve that effect. That would send a clear  
signal that internationalised email is fixed THAT WAY, and a few  
subsequent trimmings of the downgrade machanism within that framework  
should not cause problem (especially as downgrade may well disappear in  
the Long Term).

So if that is, in essence, what the Chinese standard is going to do, then  
why not?

> I also fear a Chinese EAI standard without downgrade more than a  
> downgrade with quirks.  Also, hopefully, "downgrade" will eventually  
> stop being used, so even if it's really bad, at least it should be  
> limited :)

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: [phone]                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [e-mail]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5