Subject: [EAI] Minutes from Minneapolis

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:08:14 +0100

Attached is the first draft of the Minneapolis minutes (thanks to Ted 
Hardie!)

Please send corrections or comments to the chairs.

NOTE: I do not believe there were any issues of great controversy in 
this meeting. If I do not hear otherwise on the list, I will assume that 
all resolutions reached by the meeting are accepted by the WG on the 
mailing list.

For those who were not present - please call out any decision you wish 
to have explicitly re-evaluated on-list!

             Harald Alvestrand

EAI

November 20, 2008 Harald Alvestrand, chair

The group first reviewed the status of the documents; the core group
has been published as rfcs.  A few others have expired or were
refreshed very late.  Only one in queue with the ADs.  Downgraded is
the one in the AD queue, with issues raised.

The group reviewed the AD issues:

ABNF for envelope addresses, 2047 encoding instructions, ORCPT
handling, reservation of Downgraded-*, Less critical issues

The ABNF for envelope addresses is inconsistent; the AD recommended
that a single form be selected.  This avoids the need for a different
parsers.  The AD recommended using the From form (nested angle
brackets versus adjacent angle brackets) consistently throughout.
Consensus to use the <eai<alt-addr>> throughout.

2047 encoding instructions: some text implies encoding of structured
fields; not explicit about breaking fields into multiple encoded
words.  The resolution agreed was to add advice to use multiple
encoded words when needed.

ORCPT encoding was the third issue.  It has text that says it MUST be
converted to one of two forms; this seems unworkable.  The group
concluded that it would accept the ADs suggested change:

"The transformation that needs to occur on the content of ORCPT is to
1.  remove xtext encoding
2. convert the result of step one to utf-8-addr-unitext form where all
non-ASCII characters are represented as EmbeddedUnicodeChar,
3. re-apply xtext encoding to the result of step 2."

The group then discussed the reservation of downgraded-*.  The
document references procedures which are not present.  Discussion of
the problem noted that there might be a way to bend the rules rather
than changing them (making it more a suggestion with a note, rather
than changing the rules: asking them not to include new downgrade-
headers during the EAI experiment).  AD suggests that this document
contain instructions to the expert reviewer, rather than IANA.
Re-wording to fall under the "conflict with existing IETF activity"
provision of expert review instead.

The working group chair will ask the editor to produce a new document
incorporating these changes as soon as possible; the other issues
raised will be taken to the list.

The group then discussed how comprehensive to make the list of headers
to be downgraded; Auto-submitted was one example.  Chris was concerned
that converting auto-submitted to downgraded-auto-submitted might
allow for the creation of mail loops.  A total of six will be added to
the list: Original-recipient, Auto-submitted, Disposition-to,
Content-transfer-encoding, Content-language, Accept-language (the
comments on these may be where the UTF-8 occurs).  Further discussion
will be on the linst.

The group then discussed the downgrade-display draft.  Only two
present had read the draft recently.  The group discussion focused on
the security considerations.  John Klensin felt that it out to be
re-couched as a set of experiments to be performed.  No consensus on
disposition, but the chair stressed that further review is needed here
to make progress.

The group then discussed the EAI deployment practices draft.  John's
comments here mirrored the previous draft; it is a useful place to
record experience, but it needs to be updated with real deployment
experience.

The chair took on the task of pinging the editors of

Pete Resnick then discussed the IMAP draft,first asking for
implementation and deployment experience, then reviewing the changes.
During the discusion of the APPEND syntax problem, the chair noted
that the room's participants were glazed over.  Recommendation that
there be a working group last call of the draft revision, knowing that
experimental results might cause it to be changed.

John Klensin volunteered to push the working group toward producing an
update of the charter. He believes we basically know what has to be
done.  There are documents evaluating the experiments, then ship
documents to the IESG for standards track. As a strawman, a ship date
of late 2009 for the proposed standards was discussed, but with an
intent of reviewing the question in March 2009.

There being no other business, the chair closed the meeting.

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