Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-02.txt
"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 02 July 2012 10:37 UTC
Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 0A1AB21F8961 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:37:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S7Rtts3-QifR for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B284521F8964 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:37:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta01.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id q62AbkjY009325 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:37:48 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 5310_0fee_f6ab6812_c431_11e1_b6f9_001d096c5782; Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:37:46 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:39387) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S15DAE49> for <ima@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:37:47 +0900
Message-ID: <4FF179F8.80607@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 19:37:44 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20120624044616.83062.qmail@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20120624044616.83062.qmail@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: internet-drafts@ietf.org, ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:37:55 -0000
Hello John, On 2012/06/24 13:46, John Levine wrote: > You can see a diff from -01 here: > > http://www.taugh.com/draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-02-from-1.diff.html > > I went through all the comments and think I addressed them all (which > is not the same as accepting all the suggestions.) Tell me what you > hate, preferably with text. I liked most of what I saw! A few comments: Schemes that permit both URI and IRI forms should use the URI-encoded form described in [RFC3987] abd [RFC6068]. First, "abd" -> "and". Second, "Schemes should" doesn't exactly feel right. Even if this isn't a "normative should", a scheme by itself can do neither right nor wrong. Better change to "For schemes that permit both URI and IRI forms, the URI-encoded form described in [RFC3987] and [RFC6068] should be used." (Passive voice isn't very good either, and I welcome improvements, but I think passive voice (leaving the actor open) is still better than making something an actor which can't act.) The encoding technique specified in [RFC3986] and [RFC3987] is to use a pair of hex digits preceded by a percent sign, but percent signs have been used informally in mail addresses to do source routing. Although few mail systems still permit source routing, a lot of mail software still forbids or escapes characters formerly used for source routing, which can lead to unfortunate interactions with percent- encoded URIs or any URI that includes one of those characters. I think this still somewhat misses the point. If mail software forbids %, that's better than if it would treat it as routing, because the % characters in URIs will then be rejected rather than misinterpreted. Second, the text doesn't say how things are actually supposed to work, just what may go wrong. That's a disservice to implementers who may want to get this right. So what about a rewrite along the following lines: The encoding technique specified in [RFC3986] and [RFC3987] is to use a pair of hex digits preceded by a percent sign, but percent signs have been used informally in mail addresses to do source routing. The correct processing steps when interpreting a mailto: URI are to unescape %-encoding and then to interpret the resulting mail addresses and other information. Unfortunately, not all mail software does this correctly. As a result, % characters indicating URI encoding can be erroneously included in actual mail addresses. Although few mail systems still permit source routing, a lot of mail software still forbids or escapes characters formerly used for source routing, which will make incorrectly un-decoded mail addresses undeliverable, or in very rare, accidental cases, delivered to the wrong addressee. If a program interpreting a mailto: URI knew that the MUA in use were able to handle UTF-8 data, the program could pass the URI in unencoded UTF-8, avoiding problems with misinterpreted percent signs, but at this point there is no standard or even informal way for MUAs to signal EAI capabilities. "Handle UTF-8 data" and "EAI capabilities" are not the same, or don't have to be, at least in the above scenario. And I personally have at least a glimmer of hope that MUAs that are EAI-capable also get the %-encoding thing right. So we may have the following situations: a) IRI in UTF-8, non-EAI MUA, rejects: fine, because we cannot send EAI mail with a non-EAI MUA anyway. b) IRI in UTF-8, non-EAI MUA, blows up or drops (MSB) bits or other havoc: bad! c) IRI in UTF-8, EAI MUA which grocks it: good! d) IRI in UTF-8, EAI MUA which only understands %-encoding: We missed a chance. The right text to write really depends on our judgment about the frequencies of a) vs. b), and c) vs. d). I'd hope that c) and d) are equally frequent, but I have no clue about a) vs. b), sorry. If you give me an estimate, I'll try to prepare some text. Also, note that whether internationalized domain names should be percent-encoded or puny-coded is currently unresolved. This is an improvement on what was there before, but it's still misleading. It's not that this issue is currently unresolved, and in a month or two, or in a year or two, or whatever time frame, it will be resolved. It's that there are two alternatives, and there are reasons for choosing one or the other. So I'd propose to reword this as follows: Also, note that whether internationalized domain names should be percent-encoded or puny-coded depends on the usage context. (You can cite RFC 3986 and/or 3987 here if you want.) References: [I-D.duerst-iri-bis] seems to be superfluous now. Regards, Martin. > R's, > John > > In article<20120624043323.23441.76216.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> you write: >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Email Address Internationalization Working Group of the IETF. >> >> Title : Mailing Lists and UTF-8 Addresses >> Author(s) : John Levine >> Randall Gellens >> Filename : draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-02.txt >> Pages : 9 >> Date : 2012-06-23 > > _______________________________________________ > IMA mailing list > IMA@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima >
- [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistbis-0… internet-drafts
- Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistb… John Levine
- Re: [EAI] I-D Action: draft-ietf-eai-mailinglistb… Martin J. Dürst