Subject: Re: [EAI] Standards track vs. downgrade

From: "YAO Jiankang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:25:50 +0800

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Shawn Steele 
> To: [email-masked] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:20 AM
> Subject: [EAI] Standards track vs. downgrade
> 
> 
> There’s been some discussion about how much downgrade is necessary and how that impacts standards-track.
> 
> IMO: When an IMA aware system talks to an unaware system, then the only “downgrade” that need happen is to use the ASCII addresses and the proper >encoding of non-ASCII data.

+1

>  The additional information intended to reverse downgrading I think isn’t helpful (like the downgraded headers), since, by definition, the recipient doesn’t >know about EAI and won’t know what to do with it.  

+1

>Only rarely would a downgraded message end up somewhere that reversal is interesting and I don’t 
>think that’s worth the complexity and difficulties.

simple will work.

> 
> Is there anything blocking one-way downgrade from standards track?
> 

It depends on WG  to do the choice: how much downgrade we need.

other factors we may consider are:
1. which method is easy to be implemented and deployed?
2. which method will survive 10 or 20 or more years?
3. which method will cause less internet security?
4. which method is more convenient to internet email users?
5. we can not be too optimistic to pridict that all the email servers will be updated to support  EAI in the long run. There will always have some servers to refuse to update.

Yao Jiankang
CNNIC

> - Shawn
> 
> 
> http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima