Re: [EAI] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6532 (6036)

Your recollection is correct and so is your point about this being
a fundamental change to SMTPUTF8. There was a strong consensus that
parameter names didn't need to be internationalized.

				Ned

> My vague recollection is that this was an explicit decision by
> the WG.   Essentially, just as the WG concluded that header
> field names should remain restricted to ASCII, the conclusion
> was that Content-type fields were protocol parameters, not
> information for the user, and that there was no need (and
> potentially some cost and risks) to allow non-ASCII characters
> or free text more generally.  One could revisit that question,
> but I believe that the appropriate way to do it would be to
> generate an Internet draft that explained the issues and
> tradeoffs and proposed a change -- not just to RFC 6532 but to
> the IANA registries related to Content-type parameter values.

> In any event not something that is possible as a erratum because
> the change would change the technical requirements for an
> SMTPUTF8 implementation.

> best,
>   john

> --On Wednesday, April 1, 2020 01:37 -0700 RFC Errata System
> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:

> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6532,
> > "Internationalized Email Headers".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6036
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Technical
> > Reported by: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
> >
> > Section: GLOBAL
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> > A section 3.2bis, "Syntax Extensions to RFC 2045", is missing.
> >
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> > In particular, Section 5.1 of RFC 2045, "Syntax of the
> > Content-Type Header Field", deserves an extension:
> >
> >     token /= UTF8-non-ascii
> >
> > similar to the extensions given to various text types given in
> > Section 3.2.
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > Various header fields are defined in terms of the grammar
> > defined in RFC 2045.  In particular, the missing extension of
> > token was reported for Authentication-Results:
> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/g1U__axJW5I6OenEuw
> > D48nwptzU
> >
> > Instructions:
> > -------------
> > This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary,
> > please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be
> > verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the
> > verifying party   can log in to change the status and edit the
> > report, if necessary.
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > RFC6532 (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13)
> > --------------------------------------
> > Title               : Internationalized Email Headers
> > Publication Date    : February 2012
> > Author(s)           : A. Yang, S. Steele, N. Freed
> > Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> > Source              : Email Address Internationalization
> > Area                : Applications
> > Stream              : IETF
> > Verifying Party     : IESG

> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> IMA@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima