On 4/14/2011 3:41 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
#4: non-ascii header text
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/015789.html
[...]
I'm fine with all of these changes, but am happy to defer to those more
well-versed in EAI than I am.
Unfortunately, I think this topic is not trivially resolved.
Our spec relies on ToASCII, but the UTF-8 folks took it away. Since it's
documented in an RFC and we have no complaints that it fails to work correctly,
we can continue to refer to it, in spite of its being obsoleted. However, that
is obviously an uncomfortable road to travel.
The problem with switching to RFC5890 is the potential that that constitutes an
actual protocol change of a type not allowed for going to Draft Standard.
The problem with ignoring UTF-8 issues is, of course, that that's no longer
acceptable.
This issue has been floating around for months and I have never found my own
view landing on solid ground. I do not know the best way for us to navigate
it.
Worse, I'm not even sure who we should talk with to get advice, since the
EAI/UTF-8 space has its own content and process problems right now.
mumble.
The best I can think of is to take the details John Levine proposes and float
them by a number of IESG folks for pre-approval review. If they are
comfortable
that it resolves the issue without threatening Draft status, then we are done.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html