[EAI] draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-03.txt

fujiwara@jprs.co.jp Tue, 15 November 2011 02:12 UTC

Return-Path: <fujiwara@jprs.co.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 BDE0B11E82F4 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:12:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.09
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.09 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 N+FDOEbcajB9 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:12:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from send11.jprs.co.jp (send11.jprs.co.jp [IPv6:2001:df0:8:6::62]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D932B11E82F3 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 18:12:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sendsms11.jprs.co.jp (sendsms11.jprs.co.jp [202.11.17.111]) by send11.jprs.co.jp (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAF2C0hh025855 for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:12:00 +0900 (JST)
Received: from sendsms11.jprs.co.jp (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by sendsms11.jprs.co.jp (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id A0036384A for <ima@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:12:00 +0900 (JST)
X-AuditID: ca0b116f-0000000a00002865-5e-4ec1ca6f1561
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:11:59 +0900
Message-Id: <20111115.111159.233706858.fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>
To: ima@ietf.org
From: fujiwara@jprs.co.jp
In-Reply-To: <20111031152155.5832.21783.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20111031152155.5832.21783.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3.50 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [EAI] draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-03.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: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:12:02 -0000

Hi, all,

I updated draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade to -03.

This is changes from -02 and what I want to decide for future updates.
same as  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/eai-1.pdf

Please check the draft and diffs at:
       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-03

Changes from -02 to -03 are:
  1. Added "Updates: 5322 (if approved)" in header
     "Section 3.  Updating RFC 5322" already appeared in -02
  2. Added Message-ID downgrading
  3. Treated Unknown Header Fields as unstructured
  4. Updated and fixed IANA considerations
  5. Added one sentence to Security Considerations
  6. Updated TYPED address downgrading
  7. Updated the example
  8. Some changes

2. Message-Id Downgrading
  RFC 5322 Section 3.6 describes that Min number of Message-Id, In-Reply-To,
   References, Resent-Message-Id fields is zero
  These header fields may be removed (with encapsulation)
  Defined new Downgraded header fields
     Downgraded-Message-Id, Downgraded-Resent-Message-Id
     Downgraded-In-Reply-To, Downgraded-References
  Defined Message-Id header downgrading as ENCAPSULATION Downgrading

3. Treated Unknown Header Fields as unstructured
  Previously, Unknown Header Fields was Encapsulated to new header field
   which field name is the concatenation of "Downgraded-" and the original name
   Downgraded-X-Unknown:
  RFC 5322 Section 3.6.8 "Optional Fields" says
   Field unspecified in this document is optional-field 
   optional-field  =   field-name ":" unstructured CRLF
  Unknown Header Field Downgrading was changed as UNSTRUCTURED Downgrading
  Is this change OK ?

4. IANA considerations
  RFC 5504 defined many Downgraded header fields
    All of them are unused by recent standard track documents
  Update them to replace "experimental" with "obsoleted" and
    to reference this document (Or framework document ?)
  RFC 5504 requested refusing any "Downgraded-" registrations 
    It may be useless, and new updating text required
  Added new 6 Downgraded- header fields
    Message-ID related and missed TYPED address headers
  Need more fixes

5. Secutiry Considerations
  Added one sentence
    Existing clients do not know new From: and Sender: header fields syntax
    updated by Section 3 and may get wrong when they confront<group> syntax
    in From: and Sender: fields.

6. Updated TYPED address downgrading
  Added missing header fields definition
    Downgraded-Original-Recipient:
    Downgraded-Final-Recipient:

TODO
  Commented by Chairs, but no time to update to -03
    Updating header fields definition and IANA Considerations

  Compatible to RFC 5504
    Compatible with IANA Registry:
      http://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/perm-headers.html
  New IANA request format

I have new proposal
  <addr-spec> is downgraded as "Internationalized Address" ENCODED-WORD "Removed:;"
  May I change it as ENCODED-WORD ":;" ?

  Reason
    It's easy and simple to implement
    People who need internationalization cannot understand
      "Internationalized Address removed".
    With/Without ""Internationalized Address removed",
    it is a group syntax and the receiver cannot reply.

I want to make questions for WG members,
  1. Is it OK that treating Unknown Header Fields as unstructured ?
  2. Who obsoletes header fields defined by RFC 5504 ?
      (framework ? This document ?)
  3. Is removing "Internationalized Address removed" OK ?

Regards,

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <fujiwara@jprs.co.jp>

> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org
> 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           : Post-delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages
> 	Author(s)       : Kazunori Fujiwara
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-03.txt
> 	Pages           : 19
> 	Date            : 2011-10-31
> 
>    The Email Address Internationalization (UTF8SMTP) extension allows
>    UTF-8 characters in mail header fields.  POP and IMAP servers support
>    internationalized email messages.  If a POP/IMAP client does not
>    support Email Address Internationalization, POP/IMAP servers cannot
>    send Internationalized Email Headers to the client and cannot remove
>    the message.  To avoid the situation, this document describes a
>    conversion mechanism for internationalized Email messages to be
>    traditional message format.
> 
> 
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-03.txt
> 
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> 
> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-03.txt
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
>