ietf-smtp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-smtp] New Mailing List to discuss email canonicalization?

2016-04-15 09:46:40


--On Friday, April 15, 2016 14:26 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey(_dot_)melnikov(_at_)isode(_dot_)com> wrote:

Hi,
I've been asked to create a new mailing list for discussing
solutions to "are these 2 email addresses the same" problem
which originated in the DANE WG. Should I just go ahead and do
that or would people prefer to just discuss this topic on this
mailing list?

Alexey,

Unless people propose to update RFC 5321 to eliminate a
requirement that has been in place from 821 and through 1123 and
2821, I don't see that there is anything to discuss.  It seems
to me that the rules are very clear, i.e., that, except on the
final delivery SMTP server, two mailboxes are equal iff:

 -- The domain parts are equal under DNS rules
        (case-independent for ASCII strings and U-label:A-label
        equivalence for IDNA strings)
 -- The local parts are equal if they are octet-by-octet
        identical.

"Canonicalization" that produces any other results violates a
MUST constraint in 5321 with all of the interoperability
implications of that constraint.

Now, if someone claims that the language in 5321 is
insufficiently clear on that point, discussion of a proposed
update to clarify it might be useful.  However, I doubt that is
what proponents of "canonicalization" have in mind.  What I
think I'm seeing is claims that 5321 is either ambiguous or says
something else by people who don't consider reading and
understanding it to be a necessary requirement for developing
standards about email.

    john



_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp