In <01K57PIKAO3A00004L(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com writes:
Of course. But you do that by joining the IDN list and participating in the
discussion there, not by holding a separate discussion elsewhere. I hope most
of the people interested in this topic have already done this; I certainly
have.
Indeed, but I am already on as many of these lists as I can handle :-( .
This would be reasonable if there was consensus on the basic approach to the
problem and all that was being argued were the details. But there isn't (quite)
a consensus yet, so it is impossible to be sure what the eventual solution is
going to look like. And while I think it highly unlikely, it is possible that
the eventual solution will be done as another layer and email addresses at the
RFC2821/RFC2822 level won't change at all. There certainly is a proposal on the
table with this characteristic.
Hmmm! It looks as though I will have to wait until the dust settles a
little. I am assuming that it will finally take the form of some encoding
into ASCII that will satisfy the present addr-spec syntax. But my concerns
are:
1. There are too many encoding schemes around already; one hopes that
they will come up with something identical to, or readily adaptable from,
one of the existing ones.
2. That there should only be ONE way to encode a given domain name (or
local-part, for that matter). Or, if there is more than one, that
transports should be forbidden to reencode them en route. My concern here
is that an address may have been included within something that has been
digitally signed, and the signature may get broken. This is likely to be a
serious issue in the case of News.
3. That they are also concerned about these same things.
Exactly. It is nothing short of sheer lunacy to worry about the LHS
of email addresses when the rules for the RHS are still up the air.
Of course. But you asked if there were "any other moves afoot" (your exact
words) to deal with the LHS problem. And I responded that it would be
ridiculous to consider such moves at this point. I stick by my assessment.
See my concern #1. They should produce something that covers BOTH sides at
the same time.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clw(_dot_)cs(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk 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