On 6/5/2021 12:21 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Friday, June 4, 2021 16:14 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
You appear to be asking how it would be helpful to have the
specification reflect extensive field experience. But maybe
not?
No. I am asking a much more pragmatic question or pair of
questions: (i) whether making a change in this area (see below)
is worth, at this particular point, opening up RFC 6531 and/or
6532 (and reviewing whether other documents in the SMTPUTF8
collection to see if they need similar adjustments) would be
worth the trouble and (ii) whether there is the energy to do
that and to do it well.
Oh? On re-reading your previous two postings, I'm still not finding
those questions.
At any rate, it appears that you are suggesting expanding the proposed,
very simple, very narrow, very pragmatic and entirely experience-based
proposal into a larger and more generic activity.
While the latter might be worth considering, there is nothing about the
current issue that requires coupling it to the larger task.
I think it is particularly important to ask the second question
because the apparently underwhelming speed at which EMAILCORE
is converging on 5321bis and 5322bis does not support the
hypothesis that there is a lot of energy to do work like this
and because there are i18n issues associated with what the right
solutions might be and there appears to be even less energy in
the IETF for that kind of work.
Seems like a good reason for a) decoupling the larger task from the
immediate, narrower one, and b) deferring the larger task until more
immediate concerns are addressed.
And, finally, while I am personally convinced, at least at this
moment, that changes to the relevant text would be appropriate
if we had the collective time and energy, it is much less clear
to me that swapping MAY for SHOULD is the correct change to
make. If, in the long term and when SMTPUTF8 is ubiquitous,
U-labels were really the better answer for this case, then the
test ought to explain why that is the right target even while
explaining why A-labels may be appropriate during the transition
period (however long that lasts).
Your 'if' is problematic. You are invoking a desirable but indefinite
-- and, based on history, a discouraging -- future state as a reason to
refrain from making a simple, practical change, responding to
established reality.
Simply saying "everyone who
has spoken up about implementations is using A-labels" is
actually not a sufficient reason to change the spec.
Oh? Really? Why is that?
And I
again note that the people who were represented in the WG with
the strongest perceived need for non-ASCII email addresses do
not appear to be represented on this list.
The IETF has established practice of making decisions based on those who
show up. It's not as if this is a hidden activity.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-smtp mailing list
ietf-smtp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-smtp