Re: [EAI] UTF-8 in Message-IDs

[Frank Ellermann <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, apparently I forgot the CC: to the list, resent:

On 15 August 2011 17:19,  Ned Freed wrote:

> I'll be the first to state that the approach being taken here is risky.
> In fact I would never have chosen this approach myself. But that doesn't
> change the fact that there's a consensus to proceed in this fashion.

Maybe my original idea to start the whining in an IETF Last Call was not
completely wrong, because I certainly missed whatever resulted in this
consensus, and just *assumed* that EAI just moves on to "standards track",
because the Internet at large obviously survived the EAI "experiment".

In another mail you wrote about checking all Message-IDs in other RFCs:

| Maybe, if we were taking the MIME approach, such a check would make
| sense. But we're not doing that.

That is rather disturbing for me, "not taking the MIME approach" is not
something I'd consider.  Apart from breaking the concept of Message-IDs
without any immediately visible reasons after more than three decades,
what else does it encompass?  Whatever it might be, shouldn't this be
stated in 4952bis, preferably in upper case?

>From my POV the A in IDNA means Applications, and the first I in IRI is
not an U, no matter what XML or HTML5 say or wish.  E.g., if email users
try to use a mailto:acsii@example?in-reply-to=mid link in a mailing list
archive this is supposed to result in a message/rfc822 with an ordinary
In-Reply-To header field, unless this user intentionally uses some EAI
features.

Message-IDs don't need to be "pretty" or "human readable" or something,
their main point is to work as designed under almost all circumstances.

-Frank