Skip to main content

Simplified POP and IMAP Downgrading for Internationalized Email
draft-ietf-eai-simpledowngrade-07

Yes

(Barry Leiba)
(Pete Resnick)

No Objection

(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Wesley Eddy)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-26)
It is petty of me and you may ignore this Comment at your discretion,
but...

   This document specifies a method for IMAP and POP servers to serve
   internationalized messages to conventional clients.

1. Those would be "email clients" or "IMAP or POP clients" I guess
2. What is convention these days?

Would
"...to email clients that do not include internationalization support"
be better?

---

Section 1 para 1

s/attempt/attempts/

---

Section 5

   Some POP or IMAP clients, such as Fetchmail, download messages and
   delete the version on the server.  This may lead to permanent loss of
   information when the only remaining version of a message is the
   synthetic message.

This seems to suggest that the mechanisms described in this document 
might not always be what the user wants the server to do (i.e., they
would prefer the message was hidden on the conventional MUA and found by
the internationalized MUA, rather than downgraded for the conventional
MUA and deleted from the server).

That seems to suggest that the behavior of the server must be 
configurable per account with the default to hide.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-11-12)
While the writeup mentions:

      Consequently the base IMAP and POP3
      documents are no longer dependent on particular downgrading
      choices and that two methods presented are, to a considerable
      extent, just examples.

I believe that the two methods should be Informational, as opposed to Standards Track.

However, I now see the following sentence, which was essential to me:
    While this document specifies a well designed mechanism, it is only
   an interim solution while clients are being upgraded
   [I-D.ietf-eai-rfc5721bis] [I-D.ietf-eai-5738bis].

So I'll clear my DISCUSS.

Regards, Benoit

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-27)
(Same comment made on -downgrade):

Consider reinforcing in the security considerations section that the actions
described by this document do not include removing any signatures from the
original message - discouraging a server implementation from trying to be
'helpful' by removing a signature they know will fail.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-25)

- The reference on page 2 to 5738 should presumably be to
5738bis?

- Examples would be good here, and as with the other downgrade
approach, it'd be nice if there were a PDF version that showed
actual non-ASCII.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-09-24)
The most often cited originator of rule 12 was William of Ocam (b1285) though scollars who know more about these things than I think that it does back much further. I am most interested in the nature of the help that William was able to provide the Apps Area on this work.

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()