[EAI] Heads-up - SMTPUTF8/EAI interactons with draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 04 August 2016 14:26 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBBD12D5AA; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:26:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HYtk-Xrc7bbO; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2FDB12D579; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 07:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1bVJbo-000AFv-Nv; Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:26:52 -0400
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 10:26:47 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: ima@ietf.org, ietf-smtp@ietf.org
Message-ID: <8BEB02E8BDA81AC6A94AEE02@JcK-HP8200>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/JXZKJ259hgfjbJDVlT5PK3Q56Vk>
Subject: [EAI] Heads-up - SMTPUTF8/EAI interactons with draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 14:26:55 -0000
Hi. This is a heads-up about draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis, an update to the base Message Delivery Notification spec that appears to me to have some interactions with the i18n version of MDNs (RFC 6533) and to potentially be disruptive and/or an impediment to SMTPUTF8 deployment. The message below explains my perspective on the situation. Anyone on these lists who feels a need or desire to comment on the situation should direct their comments to apps-discuss@ietf.org. Please do not add to the confusion by commenting on the EAi/ima or ietf-smtp lists. thanks, john ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Thursday, August 04, 2016 10:14 -0400 From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Moving ahead with draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis Murray, Tony, and Alexey, I don't know how to think about this draft in context, but my problem is not with the specific changes to 3798. We've got Proposed Standards for internationalized headers and addresses from the EAI WG (RFC 6530ff) that include an i18n MDN specification (RFC 6533). One of the arguments against doing or standardizing that work at all was that it basically created a fork in the email environment with mutually-incompatible ASCII-only (including encoded words, etc.) and i18n-native environments. When the WG and IETF adopted the SMPTUTF8 ("EAI") specifications as Proposed Standards, most of those who were actively involved knew that the only basis on which the situation they created would be viable long-term was if it was transitional to fully-internationalized mail and that advertisement and use of the SMTP Extension SMTPUTF8 gradually became as ubiquitous as 8BITMIME. It would seem to me to be completely appropriate to update the MDN specification. However, dealing with the i18n work by saying "Application that need to convey non ASCII text in these fields should consider implementing message/global-disposition-notification media type specified in [RFC6533] instead of this specification." (ignoring the grammatical errors in that sentence) seems to me to be completely contradictory to that transition theory and very confusing to implementers and operators of email systems as to what they should be doing. Asking them to implement and support two separate specifications for the same thing long-term --except possibly with different "generate" and "accept" models as pioneered for email by RFC 2822/5322-- is, at best, unwise on the part of the IETF. The relationship between this draft and RFC 6533 raises at least two other issues. First, RFC 6533 is heavily dependent on RFC 3798. it appears to me that several of the changes made in this document interact with 6533 as well and that either it needs to be updated to reflect them (and presumably to reference this document rather than 3798) or or it needs to be made very clear that the dependencies on 3798 from 6533 do not shift to this document (and how inconsistencies in registry instructions, etc., are to be resolved). Otherwise, we get back into the unresolved argument about what it means to have normative references to a document that has been obsoleted. Second, questions have been raised in separate discussions about the complexity and implementability of 6533, some of which questions reflect on 3798. The latter are not addressed by this document. It seems to me that it is inappropriate to advance this document before those relationship issues are carefully and openly explored and discussed. While the two sets of documents (EAI-produced and this AppsAWG work) all lie within the same Area and, for MDNs, even have overlapping authorship, coordination among the various pieces of work so far makes it seem much closer to a cross-area situation, so I think it is up to the leadership of the present group and the AD(s) to decide whether it is best to hold that discussion now or on IETF LC. best, john p.s. I will forward a copy of this note to the EAI list for information, but hope we can keep the discussion here on apps-discuss. --On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 19:58 -0700 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> wrote: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798b > is-02&url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-10 > > If you have any final comments please provide them to the > list, the chair, or the authors ASAP. > > -MSK > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM > Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-09.txt > To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the ART Area General Applications > Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Message Disposition Notification > Authors : Tony Hansen > Alexey Melnikov > Filename : draft-ietf-appsawg-mdn-3798bis-09.txt > Pages : 35 > Date : 2016-07-31 > > Abstract: > This memo defines a MIME content-type that may be used by a > mail user agent (MUA) or electronic mail gateway to report > the disposition of a message after it has been successfully > delivered to a recipient. This content-type is intended to > be machine-processable. Additional message header fields > are also defined to permit Message Disposition > Notifications (MDNs) to be requested by the sender of a > message. The purpose is to extend Internet Mail to support > functionality often found in other messaging systems, such > as X.400 and the proprietary "LAN-based" systems, and often > referred to as "read receipts," "acknowledgements", or > "receipt notifications." The intention is to do this while > respecting privacy concerns, which have often been > expressed when such functions have been discussed in the past. > > Because many messages are sent between the Internet and > other messaging systems (such as X.400 or the proprietary > "LAN-based" systems), the MDN protocol is designed to be > useful in a multi- protocol messaging environment. To this > end, the protocol described in this memo provides for the > carriage of "foreign" addresses, in addition to those > normally used in Internet Mail. Additional attributes may > also be defined to support "tunneling" of foreign > notifications through Internet Mail. >... ---------- End Forwarded Message ----------
- [EAI] Heads-up - SMTPUTF8/EAI interactons with dr… John C Klensin