Subject: [EAI] Draft revised charter

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 10:42:49 -0400

Hi.

A draft revised charter is attached.  This is likely to go to
the IESG really soon, so, if anyone has comments, they should
come quickly.

A note about the benchmarks: They are quite aggressive and
depend on

 (1) the WG staying focused, rather than reopening old issues or
getting sidetracked into non-critical-path issues.  If old
issues have to be reopened due to new information, we will have
to deal with that, but I hope that everyone can refrain from
revisiting old issues with old arguments.  

 (2) Document authors/editors staying on top of things.  The WG
has a fairly poor track record in that area.  While Joseph and I
will twist arms as needed, I hope that those who are interested
and might be able to make some time will volunteer to help with
the work, ideally by working out arrangements directly with the
authors of the existing documents.

regards,
   john

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 10:23:48 +0100

> the IESG really soon, so, if anyone has comments, they should

Whilst we are agreed that the alt-address mechanisms must go, that is not
to say the whole of the downgrade mechanisms should go wth them. Although
the emphasis on it may well be reduced, it should still remain as an
option for sites that wished to use it and be described in an RFC. There
is much more to downgrading than fixing up non-deliverable addresses, and
even for that recent discussions in this WG indicated that a
punycode-based solution could be devised without too much difficulty.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 17:36:45 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
To: "IMA" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: [EAI] Draft revised charter

>Whilst we are agreed that the alt-address mechanisms must go,

+1

> that is not
>option for sites that wished to use it and be described in an RFC.

the charter said:"
Discoverable fallback addresses that could be applied before or
during message submission or after SMTP "final delivery" may be
investigated.  The WG may also develop other materials to give
advice to implementers or operators."

so we may still do something for helping the transition.

Jiankang Yao

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 10:28:50 +0100

> advice to implementers or operators."

To my way of thinking, the submission agent is the first stage of transit  
(i.e. it enquires whether the next (often final) server supports UTF8SMTP  
before deciding how to proceed). I e that John does not interpret it that  
way, so maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, that is the point at which  
downgrading, if it happens at all, could and should happen.

OTOH, I don't really see why later servers (if for some reason there is  
more than one hop) shouldn't be allowed to do the same thing.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:26:56 -0400

--On Wednesday, 12 May, 2010 10:28 +0100 Charles Lindsey
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> OTOH, I don't really see why later servers (if for some reason
> there is more than one hop) shouldn't be allowed to do the
> same thing.

Because they don't have sufficient information to do it
reliably, predictably, and consistently (across all such
servers).

     john

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 09:22:11 +0100

> reliably, predictably, and consistently (across all such

I disagree.

We defined a suitable downgrade system before which could be mechanically  
applied to any AUT8 message. If we can devise a suitable punycode-based  
transfmormation of UTF-8 addresses, then the same woild still be true.