Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)
RB> Even though, given IDNA now exists as a proposed standard, the main
RB> issues relate to the local part, the issue under discussion is that of
RB> internationalized mail addresses, not just internationalized
Really? What work needs to be done, except for local part? IDNA takes care
of the right-hand side.
So what is there to do about "internationalized mail addresses" other than the
RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
RB> other potentially relevent issues. For instance, one of the issues
RB> that has been discussed on the IMAA list is whether full-width at
RB> should be recognized in an internationalized mail address.
full-width _where_? somewhere other than local part?
if yes, then how can that be practical? if no, then the charter does not
preclude their use. (if you think otherwise, please explain.)
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>