On Apr 15, 2016, at 7:46 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
--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.
+1. This.
(And note that I am the author of the DANE ALPS draft.)
Sean
PS I do feel that the UTF-8 rules in RFC 6530-6532 for local-part are
overbroad. For example, < is not permitted unless quoted, but ＜ (U+FF1C
FULLWIDTH LESS-THAN SIGN) can be used without quoting. That means that
＜ｆｏｏ@example.com＞ has a local-part of “＜ｆｏｏ”, but a domain part of
“example.com”. However, this is not a canonicalization issue.
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp