Subject: [EAI] rfc5336bis-08 inconsistent titles

From: Ernie Dainow <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:51:49 -0400

There are inconsistent titles in various places.

Title:         SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Address
Page headings: EAI SMTP Extension
Section 3.1    The name of the SMTP service extension is "Email Address 
Internationalization".

While the name of the working group is "Email Address 
Internationalization", in fact the scope of the work includes supporting 
UTF8 in more than just email addresses. For consistency and to more 
completely reflect this standard, the above should be changed to:

Title:         SMTP Extensions for Internationalized Email
Page headings: SMTP Extensions for Internationalized Email
Section 3.1    The name of the SMTP service extension is 
"Internationalized Email".

-Ernie

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:21:06 -0400

--On Friday, March 25, 2011 14:51 -0400 Ernie Dainow
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "Email Address Internationalization".
> 
> Internationalization", in fact the scope of the work includes
> supporting UTF8 in more than just email addresses. For
> consistency and to more completely reflect this standard, the
> above should be changed to:
> 

Ernie,

With co-chair hat on...

I look forward to the day that these issues will become the most
serious facing us.

Wrt the Page Heading part, the RFC Editor prefers short strings
and requires that they not be very long.  So I think we are
stuck with page headings that are shorter than the title.  And
it is much better than we specify those than leaving to the RFC
Editor's imagination and a fight at AUTH48.  Something like
"SMTP I18N Extensions" would probably work, but that is more an
indication about lengths and common practice than a proposal.

The question of whether 5336bis is about addresses or about
support for UTF-8 more generally has been discussed by the WG.
I'm going to continue in the policy of letting Joseph decide
when consensus statements are needed and make them when
required.  But I note we've had a lot of confusion on all sides
of the argument:  5336/ 5336bis are about more than addresses,
but many of the suggestions for saying that have triggered
discussion about content, Content-Types, and
Content-transfer-encodings that neither 5336bis nor 5335bis
address.   Not easy to get exactly right without writing
paragraphs, and paragraphs clearly don't fit in titles.

Co-chair hat off, personal preference only...

I would prefer to get rid of "EAI" in all document titles and
anything else normative. It won't convey much to anyone in the
future and may cause confusion.   So, in that regard at least, I
prefer your titles to the existing one.

    john