Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES. Has enough positions to pass.
Comment (2010-09-23) 
p21: s/Expecting and most/Expecting most/
Comment (2010-09-22)
Thank you for this clear, well-written document. Several sentences struck me as
difficult to parse...
1. In Section 8.1:
It is likely that the most common cases in which a message that
requires these extensions is sent to a system that does not will
involve the combination of ASCII-only forward-pointing addresses with
a non-ASCII backward-pointing one.
I suggest:
Sometimes a message that requires these extensions is sent to a
system that does not support these extensions; tt is likely that the most
common cases will involve the combination of ASCII-only forward-pointing
addresses with a non-ASCII backward-pointing one.
2. In Section 10.1:
While these
are permitted by the protocols and servers are expected to support
them and there are special cases where they can provide value, taking
advantage of those features is almost always bad practice unless the
intent is to create some form of security by obscurity.
I suggest:
These formations are permitted by the protocols and servers are
expected to support them. Although they can provide value in special
cases, taking advantage of them is almost always bad practice unless
the intent is to create some form of security by obscurity.
3. In Section 10.1:
o In general, it is wise to support addresses in Normalized form,
using either Normalization Form NFC and, except in unusual
circumstances, NFKC.
Is the intent to say that it is best to use NFC and to use NKFC only in unusual
circumstances?
4. In Section 11.1:
The mailto: schema [RFC2368] and discussed in the Internationalized
Resource Identifier (IRI) specification [RFC3987] may need to be
modified when this work is completed and standardized.
I suggest:
The mailto: schema, defined in RFC 2368 [RFC2368] and discussed
in the Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI) specification [RFC3987],
may need to be modified when this work is completed and standardized.
5. In Section 12:
The key architectural difference between the
experimental specifications and this newer set is that the earlier
specifications supported in-transit downgrading including providing
syntax and functions to support passing alternate, all-ASCII,
addresses with the non-ASCII ones and special headers to indicate the
downgraded status of messages.
Yes, "downgrading including providing" is impressive, but I suggest:
The key architectural difference between the
experimental specifications and this newer set is that the earlier
specifications supported in-transit downgrading, which included the
definition of syntax and functions to support passing alternate, all-ASCII,
addresses with the non-ASCII ones as well as special headers to
indicate the downgraded status of messages.
6. In Section 14:
Expecting and most or all
such transformations prior to final delivery be done by systems that
are presumed to be under the administrative control of the sending
user ameliorates the potential problem somewhat as compared to what
it would be if the relationships were changed in transit.
I suggest:
This potential problem can be mitigated somewhat by enforcing the
expectation that most or all such transformations will be performed
prior to final delivery by systems that are presumed to be under the
administrative control of the sending user (as opposed to being
performed in transit by entities that are not under the administrative
control of the sending user).
Finally, a reference to RFC 5280 seems appropriate in Section 14 when
mentioning PKIX.
Comment (2010-09-21)
Thank you for this very clearly and concisely written document. I
have only a few minor editorial comments:
Section 7.1: s/left hand part/local part/ and right hand part/domain
part/ for consistency with convention elsewhere in the document?
Also in section 7.1: is US-ASCII equivalent to ASCII and can US-ASCII
be replaced by ASCII for consistency? It's not terribly important,
but the rest of the document is written carefully enough that when I
read "US-ASCII" I thought it might have some significance relative to
ASCII as used throughout the rest of the doc.
In section 10.1, what, exactly, are "EAI mailbox names"?
Comment (2010-09-23)
The phrase "this document" is used in a confusing manner in the first two
bullets of section 5. For example, bullet 1 reads
o SMTP extensions. This document [RFC5336bis-SMTP] provides an SMTP
extension (as provided for in RFC 5321) for internationalized
addresses.
However, "this document" refers to the referenced specification
[RFC5336bis-SMTP] rather than this document (the framework). Perhaps the
clause could be deleted in both bullets. Then bullet 1 would read:
o SMTP extensions. [RFC5336bis-SMTP] provides an SMTP
extension (as provided for in RFC 5321) for internationalized
addresses.
datatracker.ietf.org