IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [EAI] WG Last Call to RFC5336bis, RFC5335bis, RFC5337bis

"Jiankang YAO" <yaojk@cnnic.cn> Fri, 23 September 2011 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
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 5802421F8CD4 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <KBA0psqISyzw>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.805
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.805 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.238, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, 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 KBA0psqISyzw for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp.cnnic.cn [159.226.7.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 67FB021F8CD3 for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 08:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (eyou send program); Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:33:00 +0800
Message-ID: <516791980.29195@cnnic.cn>
X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: yaojk@cnnic.cn
Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo47e041cf) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:33:00 +0800
Message-ID: <449DB00666C14E84A4C0548123804AE3@LENOVO47E041CF>
From: Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ima@ietf.org
References: <516740195.16875@cnnic.cn>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 23:32:40 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109
Subject: Re: [EAI] WG Last Call to RFC5336bis, RFC5335bis, RFC5337bis
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: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 15:30:33 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: <ima@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [EAI] WG Last Call to RFC5336bis, RFC5335bis, RFC5337bis


>I read all three, 5335bis and 5337bis are ready to go.
> 
> With some trepidation, I ask one question about 5336bis:
> 
> In section 3.2, third paragraph, it still says that without EAI, the
> client "... MUST NOT transmit a mail message containing
> internationalized mail headers as described in [RFC5335bis] at any
> level within its MIME structure ...".  Back in March, we discussed
> this and I was under the impression we agreed to remove the
> requirement that you need EAI to send a message/global MIME part.  See
> the messages around this one:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/current/msg04078.html
> 
> My goal is not to reopen the can of worms, but to clarify whether
> 
> A) we didn't agree to the change and the current wording is OK, or
> 
> B) we did agree to the change, and the draft should delete the "at
> any level" language.
> 

the following link is the consensus result
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/eai/trac/ticket/5#comment:1

"
Should the WG keep the decision about nested encodings and the use of message/global as described in RFC5336 and RFC5336bis? Or is a different model needed? 

"

the consensus result is yes.


Jiankang Yao


> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email