Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-yoneya-ima-downgrade-01.txt

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 21:06:12 +0100

Some detailed questions/comments on the draft below:

 >3.2.  Mail Header Downgrading
 >
 >   Target of downgrading elements in mail headers (SMTP data) are below:
 >
 >   Originator address(es): IMA in From, Reply-To and Sender and their
 >      Resent- headers MUST be target of downgrading.
 >   Destination address(es): IMA in To and Cc and their Recent- headers
 >      MUST be target of downgrading.

Should Bcc header field be in this list as well (also elsewhere in the 
document)?

What about various List-* header fields that can contain mailto URLs?

 >   IDs: IDs such as Message-ID, In-Reply-To and Referenece

typo: References

 >   MUST NOT be target of downgrading.
 >   other headers: UTF-8 in other headers such as Subject and Received
 >      SHOULD be target of downgrading.

Is there any reason why SHOULD is used here instead of the MUST?

 >3.3.  Requirements
 [...]
 >   5.  Downgrade and upgrade method MUST be defined clearly.

I read this requirement as an obvious requirement on output of this WG. 
So I think the MUST keyword is not applicable here.
Or is this sentence trying to say something else?

 >4.  SMTP Downgrading
 >
 >   Downgrading MUST be performed in each SMTP session.  Target of
 >   downgrading elements in SMTP envelope are below:
 >
 >   o  MAIL FROM:
 >   o  RCPT TO:

I've already touched on the subject in my other message, but is there 
any interaction between downgrade and DSN SMTP extension?

 >   Further, even if no downgrading is performed for envelope from/to,
 >   MUA/MTA SHOULD downgrade headers including UTF-8.  This is described
 >   in next session.

Why only SHOULD here and not MUST? I.e. what are the anticipated reasons 
for MUAs for violating the SHOULD?

 >5.1.  Downgrading with MIME encapsulation
 >
[...]
 >   Upgrade/Decode
 >      *  If mail message contains only one MIME part and its Content-
 >         Type is 'Message/EAI', it may be downgraded.  To check if

"may be upgraded".

 >         downgraded, compare mail body's message-id and MIME part's
 >         message-id.  If message-ids are same, it is downgraded message.
 >         Then, treat MIME part as entire mail message.

 >6.2.  MDA Requirements
 [...]
 >   4.  If MDA detects that SMTP recipient address is downgraded IMA,
 >       then MDA MUST decode IMA and perform the same processing as if it
 >       were IMA.  MDA MAY normalize or canonicalize local-part before
 >       processing it.

It is not clear about what kind of normalization/canonicalization the 
draft is talking about and why it is needed at the receiving end.

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:42:09 +0900 (JST)

Sorry too late my response and thanks a lot for your comments.

> From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>

I will add Bcc. (I will also re-check RFC 4021).

> What about various List-* header fields that can contain mailto URLs?

In my opinion, List-* and X-* header fields are contained in 'other fields'.

> Is there any reason why SHOULD is used here instead of the MUST?

Yes, I'll rewrite to 'MUST'.

> Or is this sentence trying to say something else?

Downgrading requirements part will be rewritten.

> any interaction between downgrade and DSN SMTP extension?

DSN SMTP extension should be considered.  "ORCPT" parameter may need
to be extended to specify IMA and ALT-ADDR or ATOMIC.
(But I don't like to consider now.)

> for MUAs for violating the SHOULD?

I will rewrite it as "MUST downgrade ... or bounce".

>  >         Type is 'Message/EAI', it may be downgraded.  To check if

"it may be a downgraded message."

> draft is talking about and why it is needed at the receiving end.

The receiving end administrates mail addresses which belongs to the
receiving end domainname. Only it knows how to normalize/canonicalize
in its domainname.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS