Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email
draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12
Yes
(Alexey Melnikov)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Lars Eggert)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2010-09-22)
Unknown
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.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-23)
Unknown
p21: s/Expecting and most/Expecting most/
David Harrington Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-21)
Unknown
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"?
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-23)
Unknown
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.