Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-07.txt>(Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard

Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com> Fri, 10 September 2010 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <julien@trigofacile.com>
X-Original-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FC743A6884 for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.089
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eKP4Ge3yjKR2 for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 64.mail-out.ovh.net (64.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.185.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C5E13A68DF for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 14:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 23814 invoked by uid 503); 10 Sep 2010 20:17:20 -0000
Received: from b7.ovh.net (HELO mail415.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.57) by 64.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Sep 2010 20:17:20 -0000
Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Sep 2010 22:24:05 +0200
Received: from aaubervilliers-151-1-49-240.w83-114.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO Iulius) (julien%trigofacile.com@83.114.131.240) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 10 Sep 2010 22:24:05 +0200
Message-ID: <FFE6CECF79784D84BFD1B49C014FCE19@Iulius>
From: Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com>
To: ima@ietf.org
References: <20100831225457.15784.9861.idtracker@localhost><B99C51EED858401B952CC08ABD31A9C9@Iulius> <op.vitye1my6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <op.vitye1my6hl8nm@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:24:04 +0200
Organization: TrigoFACILE -- http://www.trigofacile.com/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="response"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18197
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 10656924094991957430
X-Ovh-Remote: 83.114.131.240 (aaubervilliers-151-1-49-240.w83-114.abo.wanadoo.fr)
X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net)
X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N
Cc: Charles Lindsey <chl@clerew.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-07.txt>(Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard
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, 10 Sep 2010 21:23:42 -0000

Hi Charles,

>> * In section 11 about additional issues, would it be worthwhile adding
>> a paragraph about Netnews gatewaying?
>
> It might be reasonable to mention that EAI could be adapted to Netnews (I  believe it would fit quite nicely), but that would be 
> merely an aside,  pointing out that it was "Future Work".

Yep, it was my point.  Something like what is for instance done for URIs:

  11.1.  Impact on URIs and IRIs

    The mailto: schema [RFC2368] and discussed in the Internationalized
    Resource Identifier (IRI) specification [RFC3987] may need to be
    modified when this work is completed and standardized.

It is a section with only three lines.  I thought something similar
could have been added for Netnews.



>> News articles can also be PGP-signed (for control articles, moderated
>> newsgroups, de-spamming bots, etc.) so it is still not advisable to
>> use an i18n mail address in a From:, Sender: or Approved: header field
>> for instance...
>
> I don't really see a problem there.

No problem indeed.  I mentioned it because I had just read the draft
and it was totally fresh in my mind.  I just mentioned it after reading
Section 11.3:

  11.3.  Encoded Words, Signed Messages, and Downgrading

    For example, message parts that are cryptographically signed, using
    e.g., S/MIME [RFC3851] or Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) [RFC3156], cannot
    be upgraded from the RFC 2047 form to normal UTF-8 characters without
    breaking the signature.  Similarly, message parts that are encrypted
    may contain, when decrypted, header fields that use the RFC 2047
    encoding; such messages cannot be 'fully' upgraded without access to
    cryptographic keys.

The same issue affects downgrading a PGP-signed Approved: header field
in Netnews.  I meant that when I wrote my comment.
Sorry for not having said it more clearly.  I understand it is not obvious
at all when rereading what I wrote without any context.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« Ne crains pas d'avancer lentement, crains seulement de t'arrêter. »
  (proverbe chinois)