ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: local-part conventions and enhancements

2002-05-06 10:26:41

At 09:22 AM 5/6/2002 -0700, ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
what makes the template inappropriate for other sorts of services, some of
which are not offramp, but instead something on the targeting host?

It is approprate as long as interpretation is left up to the system that
"owns" the local-part.

Agree entirely. One of the major bits of superiority in Internet mail technology is that the local part was left as a local matter. It permits all sorts of flexibility that the well-intentioned, but over-specified, X.400 addressing prevented. Alas, I tend to view the superiority as having happened more by luck than intent. In effect it was the result of the strong independence of Arpanet research sites. Getting agreement on the right-hand side was obviously required, but messing with the left-hand side would have been viewed as incursion. (Hmmm, I find myself thinking of U.S. "states' rights" arguments.)

However I wonder about standardizing the SYNTAX in local-part. The current free form would remain, but the set of restricted characters would grow a bit, with the use of the newly-restricted characters limited to this parametric form.

This presumes that there is global benefit to standardizing the syntax, and that translates into benefit into having a standard scheme for generating and parsing this type of multi-field local-part.


What's can be problematic is the combination of a parameter structure and
encoding of non-ASCII characters. This sort of encoding implies some level of
interpretation of the local-part going on in the context of systems that do not
"own" it but want to "display" it.

Exactly. And, yes, merging this with international character support makes things more... interesting.


There's a slippery slope lurking in this neighborhood. I don't think we're on
it yet, but we do need to be careful.

If we pursue standardization, we are definitely incurring the slippage. I would not make light of the implications.

I've come to believe that we do need a standard way of doing local-part parameterization. It's a requirement that has shown up a few times and we might as well tackle it. Clearly, international characters are also required.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker(_at_)brandenburg(_dot_)com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.850.1850