Internationalized Email Headers
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    eai mailing list <ima@ietf.org>,
    eai chair <eai-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Internationalized Email Headers' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Internationalized Email Headers'
  (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Email Address Internationalization
Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and Peter Saint-Andre.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis/

Ballot Text

Technical Summary

This document specifies an enhancement to the Internet Message Format
that allows use of Unicode in mail addresses and most header field
content.

     Working Group Summary 
        
This document has been discussed in EAI WG for a very long time. 
The WG came to consensus on this document.

     Document Quality 

The documents have been extensively reviewed by people with mail
expertise. It is in very good shape.

Personnel

Jiankang YAO <yaojk@cnnic.cn> is the document shepherd.
Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> is the cognizant AD.

The EAI Working Group would like these three documents, along with
draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12 (to which all three have a normative
reference and is still under IESG review) released as a set. We would
greatly appreciate that they get consecutive RFC numbers in the
following (non-obvious) order:

draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-16
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-06

The reason that 5336bis should have a lower number than 5335bis is
because the current ordering of 5335 (the international email format
document) and 5336 (the international email transport document) has
caused some amount of confusion because the base specifications are in
the other order: First is RFC 5321 (the email transport document) and
second is 5322 (the email format document). And if it works out, having
the RFC numbers end in 0, 1, 2, and 3 respectively might be salient to
readers.

Thanks for your consideration.

RFC Editor Note