Re: [EAI] [IETF] Barriers to Deployment [ was: Content Issues]

ned+ima@mrochek.com Mon, 17 October 2016 09:24 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ima@mrochek.com>
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 1E82B129477 for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mrochek.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mQB6zqFNl4mY for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [68.183.62.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04208129426 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q67D2ALGF400WEYQ@mauve.mrochek.com> for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1476695523; bh=R8JvEjiZgfqi1H7r9Lqqu+6K8YoJQahDf0O97nsC248=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=LTII+YdSb6EaEYR+NUI5RfkzLV6wSYlpr8/Y5U6wz5VRA41vTomsEYWkr0o4SlG0a K2Dr8IGMbgKrJ1g6jcVHRmXSBCvu0kB4oGr9Ik84fOFSegWx+4DxSRpSwfIC617T7g EY0LzQu077ebuP6BWSy6/X5GaR92zmz0Uf/wm/74=
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01Q64TB541DS00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ima@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ima@mrochek.com
Message-id: <01Q67D29CYCM00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 01:58:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Mon, 17 Oct 2016 00:22:54 -0400" <7FA831D4B3709857DB95DE56@JcK-HP8200>
References: <MWHPR03MB281341141A1CE0C0895F58A482D10@MWHPR03MB2813.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <01Q668S03W0W00Q5OH@mauve.mrochek.com> <MWHPR03MB2813DA794DF0E1DEF36C8EC982D10@MWHPR03MB2813.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <532EC6872314DFB0CC2B5F46@JcK-HP5.jck.com> <783239201.731221.1476648090891@mail.yahoo.com> <7FA831D4B3709857DB95DE56@JcK-HP8200>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ima/ybOcx_fonJSlq3xQs450cngBqVU>
Cc: Harish Chowdhary <harish@nixi.in>, ima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [EAI] [IETF] Barriers to Deployment [ was: Content Issues]
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:24:49 -0000


> --On Sunday, October 16, 2016 20:01 +0000
> nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com wrote:

> >...
> > I have also been following the discussion of the subscription
> > to email lists.   I think that joining such lists is one of
> > the important uses of email addresses.  I was just talking
> > this morning to one of the not-very-computer-literate older
> > ladies in the neighborhood and she was telling me about how
> > useful she found the neighborhood email group to be.  So, I
> > can see that this is something many people (not just IETFers!)
> > probably find useful.

> Note that there are a couple of things that are very different
> between a neighborhood email group and the IETF list.   One is
> that the same requirements for transparency and accountability
> typically do not apply, at least in the same way.

I think at this point in time this is really a matter of degree, not a
brightline disctinction. At this point in time the level of support for EAI is
sufficiently low that it makes use of EAI addresses on any nontrivial mailing
list problematic.

> The other is
> closely related to what at least some of us have believed all
> along would be the normal deployment model for SMTPUTF8, by
> deployment within communities, particularly communities with a
> small number of shared primary languages, who conclude that they
> need it.

The problem is that communities increasingly no longer match up with email
providers. The obvious example here is the ever-increasing concentration of
email users on a ever-shrinking number of providers.

In theory this could make EAI deployment simpler, but in practice only one of
the four in MAGY support EAI right now.

I'm not happy about any of this, but my lack of happiness doesn't change the
situation any.

				Ned