Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [ Sun, 16 October 2016 14:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6551294C2 for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.534
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.534 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X1d6zr7p4OZh for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7CB4129404 for <>; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 07:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 06:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mauve; t=1476626308; bh=9IFgXmUxmAN6Lnx7jCifUNaENWsNK6HsOglNF5JDz6s=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=KUXPL2yMh6VEdDzEXzmN8vqfdYOgd7yqZ/e0lYrSGGEfJ/1kge1Ux2jq0RsWD4DyX GDLUAqGS0S2y4EY5k9AQ/0XZsZbBAKde3WmEIeQrMMe+lRdpPQVgWvTVkocVbGk1Z4 afUmqjxoirg/KjLjijItBhTy26tvqDF2v7KgNsfE=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> (original mail from for; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 06:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 06:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 16 Oct 2016 01:00:33 +0000" <>
References: <>
To: Shawn Steele <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [EAI] [IETF] Content Issues [
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 14:03:33 -0000

> > Seriously, at least in the near term, I'd oppose letting anyone post to an
> > IETF list from a non-ASCII address.  This has been discussed before in other
> > contexts, but it is important that we, as a standards body, be able to identify
> > who is posting to our lists and trying to influence outcomes.

> I'm confused because I don't see how EAI addresses would be less accountable
> than ASCII addresses.  Sure, they might be less readable, but surely people
> could have JohnDoe@SpecialServer.whatever and we'd have no clue who they
> "really" were.

You're missing the point. If I send to an IETF list from an EAI address, the
message I send is going to be an EAI message. Given the way EAI works, that
message is only going to reach the (currently small) subset of list
participants for whom the path to their eyeballs is EAI-capable at every step
along the way.

The effect of this is to essentially to create a EAI-capable subset of any
discussion. That breaks accontability, as John notes. But perhaps more
important is the fact that it also breaks the entire open model.

> I'd vote for "eat our own dogfood"

Like it or not, that's not possible at this point. Perhaps that will change at
some point in the future when the penetration of EAI has increased, but until
it does the best we could offer is to allow EAI addresses to receive the list
but not post to the list. And I don't think that's of sufficient utility 
to bother implementing.