Subject: [idn] FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 20:55:08 +0100

At the IETF in Minneapolis, there will be a BOF on Internationalized 
Email Addresses (IEA).

It is *preliminary* on the agenda on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 
1530-1730.

Chairs:  Pete Resnick, Patrik Fältström
Mailing list:[email-masked] (other salient lists include [email-masked])
Agenda:

Agenda Bashing (Chairs)                5 min.
Topic Introduction (Chairs)           10 min.
Proposals
   IDNA-Based (Paul Hoffman)           15 min.
   Infrastructure-Based (John Klensin) 15 min.
   IRI-Based (Michel Suignard)         15 min.

Discussion                            60 min.

Topics for discussion:

   Are there other solutions which have been specified?

   The solutions present the problem at different scopes;

      Where should the IETF tackle it?

      Are some short-term, and other long-term?

      Can the solutions be staged or co-exist?

      If staged, how to migrate from one to another?

   What are the next steps for the IETF?

NB:  This BoF is exploratory in nature, and it is not intended that the 
IETF will finalize a decision in this venue.  It was proposed to foster 
a community discussion, not charter a working group or pick a winner. 
If further work is required, step one would be identifying individuals 
willing to carry that work forward.

Reading material:
   draft-hoffman-imaa-03.txt
   draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-01.txt
   draft-duerst-iri-04.txt

Pete and myself hope people will come with a lot of constructive 
comments and ideas.

         Patrik, co-chair of the bof

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:41:11 -0800

Patrik,

Thanks for putting this BOF together.

PF>       Where should the IETF tackle it?

I am not sure I understand this question.  Please clarify.

PF>    What are the next steps for the IETF?

Would it help to have a draft charter for the meeting?  (I realize that the
presence of such different specifications makes a charter at least a bit
challenging, but it seems to help to have a draft, to make things concrete.)

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:52:22 -0500

> Would it help to have a draft charter for the meeting?  

let's back up a step further.

what problem are we trying to solve here?

Keith

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 10:37:21 -0600

On 10/27/03 at 10:52 AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:

>>DC: Would it help to have a draft charter for the meeting?

As was mentioned in the draft agenda at 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/03nov/iea.txt>, we want to simply start the 
discussion, not immediately attempt to charter a working group.

>what problem are we trying to solve here?

Please have a look at draft-hoffman-imaa, 
draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n, and draft-duerst-iri. Certainly the 
first two have very explicit descriptions of the problem.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://wwww.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 12:00:01 -0500

> what problem are we trying to solve here?

to me, that (problem we are trying to solve) would be part of the
introduction in the charter...

so I guess some initial proposal for:
- what are we trying to solve
- what would be the way to solve it

would be a good starting point together with the "state-of-the-art"
presentations.

Marc.

> Keith

------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 13:44:03 -0500

Mark,

Thanks for taking a stab at a problem statement.  I'd like to drill down
on this just a bit.

What is the source of the "growing need"?  Is it:

a. for users of many languages (particularly those not using Latin alphabets)
   email addresses are difficult to remember
b. for users of many languages (particularly those not using Latin alphabets)
   email addresses are difficult to transcribe or type
c. users want to use their names in email addresses
d. users are confused by apparently arbitrary restrictions on use of 
   characters in email addresses, and this leads to mistakes
e. on computer systems employing non-ASCII names for other purposes (e.g.
   login or account names) these do not map well to ASCII email addresses

or something else that I don't see?

> As presently constituted, email addresses are limited to the 26 Latin
> alphabetics, 10 digits, and a limited number of special characters in
> the ASCII character set.  There is a growing need to use additional
> characters, specifically Latin characters with diacriticals and
> non-Latin characters, in email addresses to better serve the needs of
> the multi-national Internet community.  However, the restrictions of
> ASCII email addresses have served as a "lingua franca" since everybody
> can enter ASCII email addresses, and there is an ongoing need for this
> as well.  The problem to be solved is the resolution of these two
> needs.

---

From: James Seng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:07:09 +0800

I seen John and Paul proposal but I have not seen Michel. Is there a 
draft that I can read up?

ps: I wont be able to join the meeting but I am interested in the subject.

-James Seng

Patrik Fältström wrote:

> a community discussion, not charter a working group or pick a winner. If 
> further work is required, step one would be identifying individuals

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:19:25 -0800

Folks,

On the theory that discussions go better when they have a concrete
deliverable, here is a proposed charter for a proposed working group.

The following started with Mark Crispin's text, although it might not look it.
Besides the usual goals for a charter, the following text attempts to specify
the problem domain in the narrowest feasible form that is valid. If anyone
thinks the scope is too narrow, they need to explain why.

DRAFT CHARTER

Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)
---------------------------------

The <local-part> portion of RFC2822 and <Local-part> portion of RFC2821 mail
addresses are restricted to a subset of ASCII. This poses a fundamental
barrier for users needing mail addresses to be expressed in a richer set of
characters, such as Latin characters with diacriticals and the many Asian
characters. The goal of the current work is to add local-part support for
these additional characters, while preserving the large, installed base of
ASCII usage.

The group will take:

as input to discussions.

The group will pay particular attention to barriers to adoption and utility,
as well as any impact the new scheme might have on the existing base of
Internet mail usage.

Milestones
----------

Nov, 03:  BOF

Dec, 03:  WG chartered

Feb, 03:  Initial draft of working group specifications.

Jun, 03:  Specifications submitted for IETF approval

d/

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:08:25 -0500

- good start!
- timeline seems pretty agressive... will see.
- would probably good to have a requirement document upfront. Might not the
same way that idn requirement ends up, but a narrow-implementable
requirement would help to have a concensus (hopefully) on what needs to be
done. 
- while the idn req went not that good, now that we have experience, I
think we should try to be better and have one.

I know I might start some debate with this, but still think it is the best
way to go...

- would be useful to have some reference to idn (idna) in the charter, as
background work. the developers and users will have to take care of "both"
(ie. idn and imail) in the email infrastructure.

Marc.

-- Monday, October 27, 2003 16:19:25 -0800 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
wrote/a ecrit:

> The following started with Mark Crispin's text, although it might not
> look it. Besides the usual goals for a charter, the following text
> attempts to specify the problem domain in the narrowest feasible form
> that is valid. If anyone thinks the scope is too narrow, they need to
> explain why.
> 
> 
> 
> DRAFT CHARTER
> 
> The <local-part> portion of RFC2822 and <Local-part> portion of RFC2821
> mail addresses are restricted to a subset of ASCII. This poses a
> fundamental barrier for users needing mail addresses to be expressed in a
> richer set of characters, such as Latin characters with diacriticals and
> the many Asian characters. The goal of the current work is to add
> local-part support for these additional characters, while preserving the
> large, installed base of ASCII usage.
> 
> The group will take:
> 
> The group will pay particular attention to barriers to adoption and
> utility, as well as any impact the new scheme might have on the existing
> base of Internet mail usage.
> 
> 
> Milestones
> ----------
> 
> Nov, 03:  BOF
> 
> Dec, 03:  WG chartered
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:42:26 -0800

Roy,

 >> Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)

RB> Even though, given IDNA now exists as a proposed standard, the main
RB> issues relate to the local part, the issue under discussion is that of
RB> internationalized mail addresses, not just internationalized
RB> local-parts.

Really?  What work needs to be done, except for local part?  IDNA takes care
of the right-hand side.

So what is there to do about "internationalized mail addresses" other than the
local part?

RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
RB> other potentially relevent issues.  For instance, one of the issues
RB> that has been discussed on the IMAA list is whether full-width at
RB> should be recognized in an internationalized mail address.

full-width _where_?  somewhere other than local part?

if yes, then how can that be practical?  if no, then the charter does not
preclude their use.  (if you think otherwise, please explain.)

d/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:20:58 -0600

>Really?  What work needs to be done, except for local part?  IDNA takes care

Please review John Klensin's draft before making these kinds of assumptions.

>RB> other potentially relevent issues.

I agree. Limiting discussion at this point to local-part does not 
take into account some of the possibilities.

pr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:13:50 -0800

Pete,

>>RB> other potentially relevent issues.
PR> I agree. Limiting discussion at this point to local-part does not
PR> take into account some of the possibilities.

That was exactly the intent of the text.

We have already seen how nicely the text served to bring into pretty stark
relief one bit of expectation from one of the proposals. It is only fitting to
have it serve the same purpose for another one.

IETF BOF time is pretty lousy for an open-ended chat.  Having specifications
to chat about is only marginally better than not having them.

What makes the real difference is having serious focus to the meeting. If we
go into this meeting without even having a clear sense of the scope of the
problem to be tackled, then the chance of having a productive meeting is
pretty small.

At the moment, it appears that the focus of the meeting is likely to be:
Shall we break existing Internet mail or shall we lay an enhancement on top of
it that preserves the installed base.  (I'm sure that everyone else who was
present at the pre-MIME/ESMTP discussions is really looking forward to
repeating the experience.)

d/