Re: [EAI] Shepherd report review of mailinglist-02

Hello John,

On 2012/07/14 4:37, John C Klensin wrote:

> <personal>
>
> Once we get EAI wound down or suspended, I want to have a
> discussion with the ADs (and maybe the IAB, who have expressed
> interest in the past) about re-doing RFC 3696 and/or 4084 to
> reflect a whole series of things that either weren't handled
> well the first time or need updating to reflect i18n (among
> other things).

I plan to have a look at RFC 3696. Ideally, the issues described therein 
should be clear from the base specs. If we can do anything in 3987bis or 
in the mailto draft, let's do that.

> I'd be delighted to retire to junior author if
> someone else is interested in what I think is the right place to
> discuss advice about funky characters in mail and how careful
> one needs to be if one is going to transform things from one set
> of syntax conventions to another one.

There are most possibly other cases where funky characters in mail are 
relevant, but for the origin of these discussions, I think first and 
foremost, it would be good to make sure that whatever is needed is in 
the mailto draft. My personal guess is that we have enough examples in 
there to make any serious implementer aware of the issues (and 
superficial implementers won't read the document anyway), but if you see 
any way to be clearer, please propose additional text or examples. I'll 
very gladly integrate them into the draft.

Regards,   Martin.

> Consider that both an offer and, for people who like putting
> their names on RFCs, a bribe.
>
>     john
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>