Re: [EAI] 5336bis
John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Sat, 25 December 2010 04:19 UTC
Return-Path: <klensin@jck.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 A8C773A69B5 for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:19:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.518
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.518 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.081, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 2Mdmzksbr30T for <ima@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:19:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bs.jck.com (ns.jck.com [209.187.148.211]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952DD3A68DF for <ima@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 20:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1PWLcy-000MhW-Bw; Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:21:08 -0500
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2010 23:21:07 -0500
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, ima@ietf.org, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <5B92D222E006F894AE0307EC@PST.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A10C65AD6@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <E14011F8737B524BB564B05FF748464A10C65AD6@TK5EX14MBXC133.redmond.corp.microsoft.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: Re: [EAI] 5336bis
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: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 04:19:12 -0000
Shawn, It isn't clear to me that anyone ever responded to this comment. If they have, I apologize for the duplication. If not... --On Friday, December 03, 2010 21:04 +0000 Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> wrote: >... > In 3.6.3 I don't get why received fields have to use > A-labels at all? I assume I missed a discussion? It would > seem to me that the end-points are all EAI aware, so it's > unclear to me why A-labels are necessary anywhere. >... Claudio pointed out in his review of 5336bis that there there are whole array of databases and tools surrounding the email environment. His particular concerns were to warn about logs and the like, but the issue is more general: neither tools nor people should ever actually need to look at a Trace ("Received") field unless something has gone wrong or is suspected of having gone wrong. Those tools (or people) may not be EAI-aware, may not have fonts appropriate to display of arbitrary Unicode strings, may not be able to read such strings (even to iterate the characters) even if they can display them, etc. There is very little advantage in internationalizing those fields and, if we were to require it, the net effect would either be less stable operation or delays in deploying EAI as more infrastructure and training are required to be put in place. The A-label requirement does require that a MTA that uses a universal "name resolution" API (the problem discussed in draft-iab-idn-encoding) perform a U-label to A-label conversion, but the main issue in draft-iab-idn-encoding really doesn't apply here: think of the requirement as applying to Received: from ... with smtp ... or with any of the other "with" keywords specified in 5336bis or the IANA registry. "with smtp" is pretty much defined in 5321 as running over TCP. If one had Received: from ... with Proprietary-Email-Transport-XYZ ... then one would be far enough outside of the combination of 5321 and 5336bis that, if a name (domain or otherwise) is expressed in UTF-8 (or UTF-16 for that matter), the implementation would not be significantly more outside the specs. best, john
- [EAI] 5336bis Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] 5336bis Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] 5336bis Jiankang YAO
- Re: [EAI] 5336bis Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] 5336bis John C Klensin
- Re: [EAI] 5336bis Shawn Steele
- Re: [EAI] 5336bis John C Klensin