Subject: Re: [EAI] Proposal for decision, approach for downgrading in UTF8SMTP

From: Kari Hurtta <[email-masked]>
Date: 07 Oct 2006 12:28:48 +0300

Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> writes in  gmane.ietf.ima:

> In draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-01 section 5, the editors have identified
> a design decision that the WG needs to take: Whether to use an
> encapsulation strategy or a conversion strategy when downgrading
> messages from an UTF8SMTP user to an ASCII user.
> 
> A few of us (editors + chairs) have had a discussion about this, and
> reached a proposed resolution:
> 
> - It is of paramount importance that ASCII users are able to interpret
> downgraded messages without special software. Therefore, a conversion
> approach MUST be used, and this will be documented in the next version.

Is there differences between these two strategies (encapsulation strategy  
and a conversion strategy) on what situations these strategies are 
possible when   downgrading is required?

/ Kari Hurtta

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:35:22 +0100

> possible when   downgrading is required?

Yes, there is a difference snd the chairs, have made the right call.  
Dealing with an encapsulated message in my inbox is a coufounded nuisance.

OTOH, there may be a few cases where UTF8smtp is not implemented (or  
properly implemented) on the intended route when a sender may choose  
_manually_ to encapsulate his message if he cannot get it through any  
other way.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5