Subject: [IEE] WG Action: Email Address Internationalization (eai)

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:16:54 -0500

A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications Area. For 
additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs.

+++

Email Address Internationalization (eai)
==========================================

Current Status: Active Working Group

Chair(s):
Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> 

Applications Area Director(s):
Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> 
Scott Hollenbeck <[email-masked]> 

Applications Area Advisor:
Ted Hardie <[email-masked]> 

Mailing Lists:
General Discussion: [email-masked]
To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima
Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/index.html

Description of Working Group:
Since early in the effort to internationalize domain names, which
resulted in the standards associated with IDNA, it has been
understood that internationalization of email address local parts is
required. At the same time, email address internationalization poses
a series of special problems. Constraints on the interpretation of 
local-parts by any system other than the final delivery one make 
address encoding nearly impossible. The need to use addresses in both 
the email envelope and in header fields, and to do so in ways that are 
at least compatible, suggests that this is not a simple and isolated 
problem.

This working group will address one basic approach to email
internationalization. That approach is based on the use of an SMTP
extension to enable both the use of UTF-8 in envelope address local-
parts and optionally in domain-parts and the use of UTF-8 in mail
headers -- both in address contexts and wherever encoded-words are
permitted today. Its initial target will be a set of experimental
RFCs that specify the details of this approach and provide the basis
for generating and testing interoperable implementations. Its work
will include examining whether "downgrading" -- transforming an
internationalized message to one that is compatible with unextended
SMTP clients and servers and unextended MUAs -- is feasible and
appropriate and, if it is, specifying a way to do so. If it is not,
the WG will evaluate whether the effort is worth taking forward.
Other approaches may be considered by the formation of other
working groups.

Key parts of this effort include extended analyses and, if necessary,
proof of concept in three areas in addition to smooth operation when
all systems and components along a message path have been upgraded to
support the new facilities. They are

o Examination of scenarios for the appearance of these facilities to
users, including ways in which alternate addresses may be
specified if those are needed for downgrading.
o Examination of different locations at which downgrading might be
required and accomplished, differentiating between requirements
and capabilities at the point of origin (at or before the
submission server), those that exist while the message is in
transit, and those that apply after SMTP "final delivery" or in
the logical vicinity or an IMAP or POP server.
o Examination of the "mailing list question", i.e., how a mixture of
traditional and internationalized addresses on a mailing list will
impact message flows, error reports, and delivery notifications in
all plausible combinations of servers and addresses, including
internationalizated and traditional reverse paths.

Once the Experimental RFCs are completed and implemented, the
experience gathered will be evaluated. If the approach is found to
have been successful (using criteria the WG will establish as an
early work item), the WG will be rechartered to update the documents
for processing onto the standards track.

1.6. Deliverables

The following deliverables are foreseen in this charter. The WG
chairs may structure the deliverables into specific documents
or document sets as needed. Adding or removing documents
outside of these deliverables will require a charter update.

o Overview and architecture (Info)
o Interworking scenarios, including the "mailing list question"
(Info)
o SMTP extensions specification (Exp)
o Header format specification (Exp)
o Downgrading specification in SMTP (Exp)
o Downgrading specification in POP servers (Exp)
o Downgrading specification in IMAP servers (Exp)
o Results and evaluation of experiment (Info)

Going forward, it is possible that the SMTP downgrading specification
will go for Informational due to the difficulty of fully specifying
all necessary behavior.

Additional possible documents suggested:
Advice for MUA implementors (Info)

Goals and Milestones:
Done    Overview/architecture draft first  
Done    Interworking scenarios first draft  
Done    SMTP Extensions first draft  
Done    Header format first draft  
Mar 2006    Downgrading in SMTP first draft  
Mar 2006    Downgrading in POP first draft  
Mar 2006    Downgrading in IMAP first draft  
Jun 2006    Overview/architecture draft to IESG  
Jun 2006    Interworking scenarios to IESG  
Sep 2006    SMTP Extensions to IESG  
Sep 2006    Header format to IESG  
Sep 2006    Downgrading in SMTP to IESG  
Sep 2006    Downgrading in POP to IESG  
Sep 2006    Downgrading in IMAP to IESG  
Dec 2006    Results and evaluation first draft  
Mar 2007    Results and evaluation to IESG  
Mar 2007    Group recharter for standards track  

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