[EAI] Substantive questions about draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-01

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Fri, 09 July 2010 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <klensin@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10BF3A68C1 for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:08:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.344
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.344 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTL8FeuJ+NmG for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C7B33A68BE for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Jul 2010 13:08:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1OXJrs-000BsS-Dy for ima@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:08:16 -0400
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:08:15 -0400
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
Message-ID: <A0D4C875717C4A1B1634FA4F@PST.JCK.COM>
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
Subject: [EAI] Substantive questions about draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-01
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:08:12 -0000


I had hoped that people would actually read this document,
discover the well-documented questions, and respond.  But with a
very few exceptions, that apparently was not to be.

So...   The draft contains the following questions or issues
about which broader WG input is needed.  If we don't hear back
soon, I'll assume that anyone who has not expressed an opinion
already is either happy with those opinions or doesn't care.
Before commenting, please check to determine whether -02 has
been posted.  If it has, I'd appreciate any comments being
addressed to it but note that -02 will probably reflect whatever
answers have been received by that time, removal of the sections
identified for removal below, etc.  Those changes can obviously
be undone, but late comments should be very persuasive ("late"
is being measured from the posting date of -01 on 3 July, not
the time of this note).

The list --only a half-dozen items-- appears below.  Note that
these are extracted from the draft, sometimes with minor
editorial changes or explanation to reduce the need for context.
If any of them are not clear, see the draft (anchor numbers have
been left in place to make that easier).

I have not listed the relatively minor editorial issues.  Lack
of comment on them will be taken to imply that the editors
should use their own judgment.

(1) [[anchor1: Note to EAI WG: the -00 and -01 drafts are
intended to initiate discussion on what should, and should not,
be in the Framework document and how we want those topics
covered.  As such, they are more of an intermediate draft
between RFC 4952 and the first draft of 4952bis that could be a
Last Call candidate.  If we are going to keep the rather
aggressive schedule we agreed to in the charter, we need to
have enough discussion on critical-path points that a revision
suitable (at least) for final review prior to Last Call can be
posted before the 12 July I-D cutoff.  For that to happen, we
should have enough discussion to start determining consensus
within the next 24 hours.  So, focused comments and soon,

(2) [[anchor2: The document describes the Experimental
documents that are being brought forward.  We believe that 5825
is no longer relevant and should be dropped. Any

(3) [[anchor12: ...  Section 6 has provision for a more or less
extensive document list/roadmap.  Do we want to include one of
those, given that the references will certainly create a
situation in which this document can be approved, but not
published, until all documents on the list are complete.  I'm
inclined to list the SMTP extension and headers documents only
and hand-wave about the rest, but we need to discuss.  Versions
-00 and -01 simply refer to the current Experimental

(4) [[anchor16: Section 9 is now a placeholder for a discussion
of "Downgrading in Transit".  We could discuss the various
issues with in-transit downgrading including the complexities
of carrying backup addresses, the problems that motivated the
"don't mess with addresses in transit" (paraphrased, obviously)
rule in RFC 5321 and friends, and so on.  Or we could omit it
(and this section).  Pragmatically, I think it would take us
some time to reach consensus on what, exactly, should be said
and that might delay progress.  But input is clearly needed --
if it is not received before we prepare -02, this section will
simply be dropped.]]

(5) Section 10.1 contains a bullet that now reads
   o  In general, it is wise for servers to provide addresses
      only in 
      Normalized form and to normalize strings on receipt,
      using either Normalization Form NFC and, except in
      unusual circumstances, NFKC.
[[anchor19: Note in Draft: "Normalize on receipt" is consistent
with the recommendations in draft-iab-i18n-encoding.  The issue
with NFKC is that some of the characters mapped out may be
significant, especially in personal names.  Anyone with
should speak up.  Soon.]]

(6) Section 12, "Experimental Targets" will be removed in -02
unless someone finds something in it on which they want to
comment and have retained.