Subject: [EAI] comment to draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-09

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:41:49 +0900 (JST)

#2: Insufficient references

There are Insufficient references to [EAI Deployment] and [EAI
addresses] because they are not listed in WG item.

To solve the issue, remove next text in "3.7.2.  Mail eXchangers".

| 3.7.2.  Mail eXchangers
|
|   In order to avoid the possible surprising rejections, the EAI-aware
|   email system may also implement the advice in EAI addresses advice
|   document [EAI addresses] and EAI deployment advice document [EAI
|   Deployment].

Otherwise, merge texts from [EAI Deployment] and [EAI addresses].

#3: Definition of UTF8SMTPbis is unclear.

| 3.2.  The UTF8SMTPbis Extension
|
|  An SMTP server that announces this UTF8SMTPbis extension MUST be
|  prepared to accept a UTF-8 string [RFC3629] in any position in which
|  RFC 5321 specifies that a <mailbox> can appear.

The text may become better if you move the definition of <uMailbox>
before UTF8SMTPbis definition.

   An SMTP server that announces this UTF8SMTPbis extension MUST be
   prepared to accept <uMailbox> in any position in which RFC 5321
   specifies that a <mailbox> can appear.

#4: Is "Replace Mailbox in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2" correct ?

  There are two ABNF sets. one is the original definition of RFC 5321.
  The other is internationalized by this draft.  The existence of
  UTF8SMTPbis extention changes the set (from RFC 5321 to this draft).
  Both sets are valid in an implementation.

  Each implementation must know both ABNF sets because it may confront
  the SMTP server which does not advertise "UTF8SMTPbis".

  <Mailbox> and <uMailbox> are different in implementations.
  <uDot-string> and <Dot-string> are differenct.

  The same comment is applied to "rfc5335bis".

  The comment may be, for example,
    uLocal-part = uDot-string / uQuoted-string
    ; MAY be case-sensitive
    ; Internationalized Local-part in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2

   uDot-string = uAtom *("." uAtom)
    ; Internationalized Dot-string in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2

   uAtom = 1*ucharacter
    ; Internationalized Atom in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2

-----

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Jiankang YAO" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:48:24 +0800

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 5:41 PM
Subject: [EAI] comment to draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-09

<snip>

>   specifies that a <mailbox> can appear.

If we hope to use the <uMailbox> in the sentence above, we can still use it and make <uMailbox> pointing to the definition of section 3.3.

>    ; Internationalized Atom in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2

 "Replace Local-part in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2"  VS   "Internationalized Local-part in RFC 5321, Section 4.1.2"
it seems that your question is which one above is better or which one is easily  understood by the implementors.

my understanding is that both are ok and there are not much differences.

thanks a lot for your kind comments.

Jiankang Yao

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