Email Address Internationalization J. Klensin
(EAI)
Internet-Draft Y. Ko
Intended status: Informational ICU
Expires: April 15, 2007 October 12, 2006
Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email
draft-ietf-eai-framework-02.txt
Status of this Memo
By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 15, 2007.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
Abstract
Full use of electronic mail throughout the world requires that people
be able to use their own names, written correctly in their own
languages and scripts, as mailbox names in email addresses. This
document introduces a series of specifications that define mechanisms
and protocol extensions needed to fully support internationalized
email addresses. These changes include an SMTP extension and
extension of email header syntax to accommodate UTF-8 data. The
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
document set also includes discussion of key assumptions and issues
in deploying fully internationalized email.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Role of This Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2. Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of the Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Document Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Overview of Protocol Extensions and Changes . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. SMTP Extension for Internationalized eMail Address . . . . 7
4.2. Transmission of Email Header in UTF-8 Encoding . . . . . . 8
4.3. Downgrading Mechanism for Backward Compatibility . . . . . 8
5. Downgrading Before and After SMTP Transactions . . . . . . . . 9
5.1. Downgrading Before or During Message Submission . . . . . 9
5.2. Downgrading or Other Processing After Final SMTP
Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Internationalization Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Additional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Impact on IRIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Interaction with delivery notifications . . . . . . . . . 11
7.3. Use of email addresses as identifiers . . . . . . . . . . 11
7.4. Encoded-words, signed messages and downgrading . . . . . . 11
8. Experimental Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
12. Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.1. draft-klensin-ima-framework: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . 14
12.2. draft-klensin-ima-framework: Version 01 . . . . . . . . . 14
12.3. draft-ietf-eai-framework: Version 00 . . . . . . . . . . . 14
12.4. draft-ietf-eai-framework: Version 01 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12.5. draft-ietf-eai-framework: Version 02 . . . . . . . . . . . 15
13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 20
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
1. Introduction
In order to use internationalized email addresses, we need to
internationalize both the domain part and the local part of email
addresses. The domain part of email addresses is already
internationalized [RFC3490], while the local part is not. Without
these extensions, the mailbox name is restricted to a subset of 7-bit
ASCII [RFC2821]. Though MIME enables the transport of non-ASCII
data, it does not provide a mechanism for internationalized email
address. RFC 2047 [RFC2047] defines an encoding mechanism for some
specific message header fields to accommodate non-ASCII data.
However, it does not address the issue of email addresses that
include non-ASCII characters. Without the extensions defined here,
or some equivalent set, the only way to incorporate non-ASCII
characters in email addresses is to use RFC2047 coding to embed them
in what RFC 2822 [RFC2822] calls the "display name" (known as a "name
phrase" or by other terms elsewhere) of the relevant headers.
Information coded into the display name is invisible in the message
envelope and would not be considered by many to be part of the
address at all.
1.1. Role of This Specification
This document presents the overview and framework for an approach to
the next stage of email internationalization. This new stage
requires not only internationalization of addresses and headers, but
also associated transport and delivery models.
This document describes how the various elements of email
internationalization fit together and describes the relationships
among the various documents involved.
1.2. Problem statement
Though domain names are already internationalized, the
internationalized forms are far from general adoption by ordinary
users. One of the reasons for this is that we do not yet have fully
internationalized naming schemes. Domain names are just one of the
various names and identifiers that are required to be
internationalized.
Email addresses are particularly important examples in which
internationalization of domain names alone is not sufficient. Unless
email addresses are presented to the user in familiar characters and
formats, the user's perception will not be of internationalization
and behavior that is culturally friendly. One thing most of us have
almost certainly learned from the experience with email usage is that
users strongly prefer email addresses that closely resemble names or
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
initials to those involving meaningless strings of letters or
numbers. If the names or initials of the names in the email address
can be expressed in the native languages and writing systems of the
users, the Internet will be perceived as more natural, especially by
those whose native language is not written in a subset of a Roman-
derived script.
Internationalization of email addresses is not merely a matter of
changing the SMTP envelope; or of modifying the From, To, and Cc
headers; or of permitting upgraded mail user agents (MUAs) to decode
a special coding and respond by displaying local characters. To be
perceived as usable by end users, the addresses must be
internationalized and handled consistently in all of the contexts in
which they occur. That requirement has far-reaching implications:
collections of patches and workarounds are not adequate. Even if
they were adequate, a workaround-based approach may result in an
assortment of implementations with different sets of patches and
workarounds having been applied with consequent user confusion about
what is actually usable and supported. Instead, we need to build a
fully internationalized email environment, focusing on permitting
efficient communication among those who share a language or other
community. That, in turn, implies changes to the mail header
environment to permit the full range of Unicode characters where that
makes sense, an SMTP extension to permit UTF-8 [RFC3629] mail
addressing and delivery of those extended headers, and (finally) a
requirement for support of the 8BITMIME SMTP Extension [RFC1652] so
that all of this can be transported through the mail system without
having to overcome the limitation that headers do not have content-
transfer-encodings.
1.3. Terminology
This document assumes a reasonable understanding of the protocols and
terminology of the core email standards as documented in [RFC2821]
and [RFC2822].
Much of the description in this document depends on the abstractions
of "Mail Transfer Agent" ("MTA") and "Mail User Agent" ("MUA").
However, it is important to understand that those terms and the
underlying concepts postdate the design of the Internet's email
architecture and the application of the "protocols on the wire"
principle to it. That email architecture, as it has evolved, and the
"wire" principle have prevented any strong and standardized
distinctions about how MTAs and MUAs interact on a given origin or
destination host (or even whether they are separate).
In this document, an address is "all-ASCII", or just an "ASCII
address", if every character in the address is in the ASCII character
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
repertoire [ASCII]; an address is "non-ASCII", or "an i18mail
address", if any character is not in the ASCII character repertoire.
Such addresses may be restricted in other ways, but those
restrictions are not relevant here. The term "all-ASCII" is also
applied to other protocol elements when the distinction is important,
with "non-ASCII" or "internationalized" as its opposite.
The umbrella term to describe the email address internationalization
specified by this document and its companion documents is "UTF8SMTP".
For example, an address permitted by this specification is referred
as a "UTF8SMTP (compliant) address".
Please note that according to definitions given here the set of all
"all-ASCII" addresses and the set of all "non-ASCII" addresses are
mutually exclusive. The set of all UTF8SMTP addresses is the union
of these two sets.
An "ASCII user" (i) exclusively uses email addresses that contain
ASCII characters only, and (ii) cannot generate recipient addresses
that contain non-ASCII characters.
A "i18mail user" has one or more non-ASCII email addresses. Such a
user may have ASCII addresses too; if the user has more than one
email address, he or she has some method to choose which address to
use on outgoing email. Note that under this definition, it is not
possible to tell from the address that an email sender or recipient
is an i18mail user.
A "message" is sent from one user (sender) using a particular email
address to one or more other recipient email addresses (often
referred to just as "users" or "recipient users").
A "mailing list" is a mechanism whereby a message may be distributed
to multiple recipients by sending to one recipient address. An agent
(typically not a human being) at that single address then causes the
message to be redistributed to the target recipients and sets the
envelope return address of the redistributed message to a different
error handling address from the original single recipient message.
The pronouns "he" and "she" are used interchangeably to indicate a
human of indeterminate gender.
The key words "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED", "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED",
and "MAY" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
2. Overview of the Approach
This set of specifications changes both SMTP and the format of email
headers to permit non-ASCII characters to be represented directly.
Each important component of the work is described in a separate
document. The document set, whose members are described in the next
section, also contains informational documents whose purpose is to
provide implementation suggestions and guidance for the protocols.
3. Document Plan
In addition to this document, the following documents make up this
specification and provide advice and context for it.
o SMTP extensions. This document [I18Nemail-SMTPext] provides an
SMTP extension for internationalized addresses, as provided for in
RFC 2821.
o Email headers in UTF-8. This document [I18Nemail-UTF8]
essentially updates RFC 2822 to permit some information in email
headers to be expressed directly by Unicode characters encoded in
UTF-8 when the SMTP extension described above is used.
o In-transit downgrading from internationalized addressing with the
SMTP extension and UTF-8 headers to traditional email formats and
characters [I18Nemail-downgrade]. Downgrading either at the point
of message origination or after the mail has successfully been
received by a final delivery SMTP server (sometimes called an
"MDA") involve different constraints and possibilities; see
Section 4.3 and Section 5, below.
o Extensions to the IMAP protocol to support internationalized
headers [I18Nemail-imap].
o Parallel extensions to the POP protocol [I18Nemail-pop].
o Description of internationalization changes for delivery
notifications (DSNs) [I18Nemail-DSN].
o Scenarios for the use of these protocols [I18Nemail-scenarios].
4. Overview of Protocol Extensions and Changes
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
4.1. SMTP Extension for Internationalized eMail Address
An SMTP extension, "UTF8SMTP" is specified that
o Permits the use of UTF-8 strings in email addresses, both local
parts and domain names.
o Permits the selective use of UTF-8 strings in email headers (see
the next subsection).
o Requires that the server advertise the 8BITMIME extension
[RFC1652] and that the client support 8-bit transmission so that
header information can be transmitted without using a special
content-transfer-encoding.
o Provides information to support downgrading mechanisms.
Some general principles apply to this work.
1. Whatever encoding is used should apply to the whole address and
be directly compatible with software used at the user interface.
2. An SMTP relay must
* Either recognize the format explicitly, agreeing to do so via
an ESMTP option,
* Select and use an ASCII-only address, downgrading other
information as needed (see Section 4.3), or
* Bounce the message so that the sender can make another plan.
If the message cannot be forwarded because the next-hop system
cannot accept the extension and insufficient information is
available to reliably downgrade it, it MUST be bounced.
3. In the interest of interoperability, charsets other than UTF-8
are prohibited. There is no practical way to identify them
properly with an extension similar to this without introducing
great complexity.
Conformance to the group of standards specified here for email
transport and delivery requires implementation of the SMTP Extension
specification, including recognition of the keywords associated with
alternate addresses, and the UTF-8 Header specification. Support for
downgrading is not required, but, if implemented, MUST be implemented
as specified. Similarly, _if_ the system implements IMAP it conforms
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
to i18n IMAP spec, ditto for POP.???
4.2. Transmission of Email Header in UTF-8 Encoding
There are many places in MUAs or in user presentation in which email
addresses or domain names appear. Examples include the conventional
From, To, or Cc header fields; Message-IDs; In-Reply-To fields that
may contain addresses or domain names; and in message bodies. We
must examine all of them from an internationalization perspective.
The user will expect to see mailbox and domain names in local
characters, and to see them consistently. If non-obvious encodings,
such as protocol-specific ASCII-Compatible Encoding (ACE) variants,
are used, the user will inevitably, if only occasionally, see them
rather than "native" characters and will find that discomfiting or
astonishing. Similarly, if different codings are used for mail
transport and message bodies, the user is particularly likely to be
surprised, if only as a consequence of the long-established "things
leak" principle. The only practical way to avoid these sources of
discomfort, in both the medium and the longer term, is to have the
encodings used in transport be as nearly as possible the same as the
encodings used in message headers and message bodies.
It seems clear that the point at which email local parts are
internationalized is the point that email headers should simply be
shifted to a full internationalized form, presumably using UTF-8
rather than ASCII as the base character set for other than protocol
elements such as the header field names themselves. The transition
to that model includes support for address, and address-related,
fields within the headers of legacy systems. This is done by
extending the encoding models of [RFC2045] and [RFC2231]. However,
our target should be fully internationalized headers, as discussed in
[I18Nemail-UTF8].
4.3. Downgrading Mechanism for Backward Compatibility
As with any use of the SMTP extension mechanism, there is always the
possibility of a client that requires the feature encountering a
server that does not support the required feature. In the case of
email address and header internationalization, the risk should be
minimized by the fact that the selection of submission servers are
presumably under the control of the sender's client and the selection
of potential intermediate relays is under the control of the
administration of the final delivery server.
For those situations, there are basically two possibilities:
o Reject or bounce the message, requiring the sender to resubmit it
with traditional-format addresses and headers.
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
o Figure out a way to downgrade the envelope or message body in
transit. Especially when internationalized addresses are
involved, downgrading will require that all-ASCII addresses be
obtained from some source. An optional extension parameter is
provided as a way of transmitting an alternate address. Downgrade
issues and a specification are discussed in [I18Nemail-downgrade].
The first of these two options, that of rejecting or returning the
message to the sender MAY always be chosen.
There is also a third case, one in which the client is I18Nemail-
capable, the server is not, but the message does not require the
extended capabilities. In other words, both the addresses in the
envelope and the entire set of headers of the message are entirely in
ASCII (perhaps including encoded-words in the headers). In that
case, the client SHOULD send the message whether or not the server
announces the capability specified here.
5. Downgrading Before and After SMTP Transactions
In addition to the in-transit downgrades discussed above, downgrading
may also occur before or during initial message submission or after
delivery to the final delivery MTA. Because these cases have a
different set of available information from in-transit cases, the
constraints and opportunities may be somewhat different too. These
two cases are discussed in the subsections below.
5.1. Downgrading Before or During Message Submission
Perhaps obviously, the most convenient time to find an ASCII address
corresponding to an internationalized address, or to convert a
message from the internationalized form into conventional ASCII form,
is at the originating MUA, either before the message is sent or after
the internationalized form of the message is rejected or bounced by
some MTA in the path to the presumed destination. At that point, the
user has a full range of choices available, including contacting the
intended recipient out of band for an alternate address, consulting
appropriate directories, arranging for translation of both addresses
and message content into a different language, and so on. While it
is natural to think of message downgrading as optimally being a
fully-automated process, we should not underestimate the capabilities
of a user of at least moderate intelligence who wishes to communicate
with another such user.
In this context, one can easily imagine modifications to message
submission servers (as described in [RFC4409]) so that they would
perform downgrading, or perhaps even upgrading, operations, receiving
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
messages with one or more of the internationalization extensions
discussed here and adapting the outgoing message, as needed, to
respond to the delivery or next-hop environment it encounters.
5.2. Downgrading or Other Processing After Final SMTP Delivery
When an email message is received by a final delivery SMTP server, it
is usually stored in some form. Then it is retrieved either by
software that reads the stored form directly or by client software
via some email retrieval mechanisms such as POP or IMAP.
The SMTP extension described in Section 4.1 provides protection only
in transport. It does not prevent MUAs and email retrieval
mechanisms that have not been upgraded to understand
internationalized addresses and UTF-8 headers from accessing stored
internationalized emails.
Since the final delivery SMTP server (or, to be more specific, its
corresponding mail storage agent) cannot safely assume that agents
accessing email storage will be always be capable of handling the
extensions proposed here, it MAY either downgrade internationalized
emails or specially identify messages that utilize these extensions,
or both. If this done, the final delivery SMTP server SHOULD include
a mechanism to preserve or recover the original internationalized
forms without information loss to support access by I18Nemail-aware
agents.
6. Internationalization Considerations
This entire specification addresses issues in internationalization
and especially the boundaries between internationalization and
localization and between network protocols and client/user interface
actions.
7. Additional Issues
This section identifies issues that are not covered as part of this
set of specifications, but that will need to be considered as part of
deployment of email address and header internationalization.
7.1. Impact on IRIs
The mailto: schema defined in [RFC2368] and discussed in IRI
[RFC3987] may need to be modified when this work is completed and
standardized.
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
7.2. Interaction with delivery notifications
The advent of UTF8SMTP will make necessary consideration of the
interaction with delivery notification mechanisms, including the SMTP
extension for requesting delivery notifications [RFC3461], and the
format of delivery notifications [RFC3464]. These issues are
discussed in a forthcoming document that will update those RFCs as
needed [I18Nemail-DSN].
7.3. Use of email addresses as identifiers
There are a number of places in contemporary Internet usage in which
email addresses are used as identifiers for individuals, including as
identifiers to web servers supporting some electronic commerce sites.
These documents do not address those uses, but it is reasonable to
expect that some difficulties will be encountered when
internationalized addresses are first used in those contexts, many of
which cannot handle the full range of addresses permitted today.
7.4. Encoded-words, signed messages and downgrading
One particular characteristic of the email format is its persistency:
MUA are expected to handle messages that were originally sent decades
ago and not just those delivered seconds ago. As such, MUAs and mail
filtering software will need to continue to accept and decode header
fields that use the "encoded word" mechanism [RFC2047] to accommodate
non-ASCII characters in some header fields. While extensions to both
POP3 and IMAP have been proposed to enable automatic EAI-upgrade---
including RFC 2047 decoding---of messages by the POP3 or IMAP server,
there are message structures and MIME content-types for which that
cannot be done or where the change would have unacceptable side-
effects.
For example, message parts that are cryptographically signed using,
e.g., S/MIME [RFC2663] or PGP [RFC3156], cannot be upgraded from RFC
2047 form to normal UTF-8 characters without breaking the signature.
Similarly, message parts that are encrypted encrypted) may contain,
when decrypted, header fields that use the RFC 2047 encoding; such
messages cannot be 'fully' upgraded without access to cryptographic
keys.
Similar issues may arise if signed messages are downgraded in transit
[I18Nemail-downgrade] and then an attempt is made to upgrade them to
the original form and then verify the signatures. Even the very
subtle changes that may result from algorithms to downgrade and then
upgrade again may be sufficient to invalidate the signatures if they
impact either the primary or MIME bodypart headers. When signatures
are present, downgrading must be performed with extreme care if at
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
all.
8. Experimental Targets
In addition to the simple question of whether the model outlined here
can be made to work in a satisfactory way for upgraded systems and
provide adequate protection for un-upgraded ones, we expect that
actually working with the systems will provide answers to two
additional questions: what restrictions such as character lists or
normalization should be placed, if any, on the characters that are
permitted to be used in address local-parts and how useful, in
practice, will downgrading turn out to be given whatever restrictions
and constraints that must be placed upon it.
9. IANA Considerations
This overview description and framework document does not contemplate
any IANA registrations or other actions. Some of the documents in
the group have their own IANA considerations sections and
requirements.
10. Security Considerations
Any expansion of permitted characters and encoding forms in email
addresses raises some risks. There have been discussions on so
called "IDN-spoofing" or "IDN homograph attacks". These attacks
allow an attacker (or "phisher") to spoof the domain or URLs of
businesses. The same kind of attack is also possible on the local
part of internationalized email addresses. It should be noted that
one of the proposed fixes for, e.g., domain names in URLs, does not
work for email local parts since they are case-sensitive. That fix
involves forcing all elements that are displayed to be in lower-case
and normalized.
Since email addresses are often transcribed from business cards and
notes on paper, they are subject to problems arising from confusable
characters. These problems are somewhat reduced if the domain
associated with the mailbox is unambiguous and supports a relatively
small number of mailboxes whose names follow local system
conventions; they are increased with very large mail systems in which
users can freely select their own addresses.
The internationalization of email addresses and headers must not
leave the Internet less secure than it is that without the required
extensions. The requirements and mechanisms documented in this set
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
of specifications do not, in general, raise any new security issues.
They do require a review of issues associated with confusable
characters -- a topic that is being explored thoroughly elsewhere
[RFC4690] -- and, potentially, some issues with UTF-8
canonicalization, discussed in [RFC3629]. The latter is also part of
the subject of ongoing work discussed in [Net-Unicode]. Specific
issues are discussed in more detail in the other documents in this
set. However, in particular, caution should be taken that any
"downgrading" mechanism, or use of downgraded addresses, does not
inappropriately assume authenticated bindings between the
internationalized and ASCII addresses.
The new UTF-8 header and message formats might also raise, or
aggravate, another known issue. If the model creates new forms of
'invalid' or 'malformed' message, then a new email attack is created:
in an effort to be robust, some or or most agents will accept such
message and interpret them as if they were well-formed. If a filter
interprets such a message differently than then final MUA, then it
may be possible to create a message which appears acceptable under
the filter's interpretation but which should be rejected under the
interpretation given it by the final MUA. Such attacks already exist
for existing messages and encoding layers, e.g., invalid MIME syntax,
invalid HTML markup, and invalid coding of particular image types.
In addition, email addresses are used in many contexts other than
sending mail, such as for identifiers under various circumstances
(see Section 7.3). Each of those contexts will need to be evaluated,
in turn, to determine whether the use of non-ASCII forms is
appropriate and what particular issues they raise.
This work will clearly impact any systems or mechanisms that is
dependent on digital signatures or similar integrity protection for
mail headers (see also the discussion in Section 7.4. Many
conventional uses of PGP and S/MIME are not affected since they are
used to sign body parts but not headers. On the other hand, the
developing work on domain keys identified mail (DKIM [DKIM-Charter])
will eventually need to consider this work and vice versa: while this
experiment does not propose to address or solve the issues raised by
DKIM and other signed header mechanisms, the issues will have to be
coordinated and resolved eventually.
11. Acknowledgements
This document, and the related ones, were originally derived from
drafts by John Klensin and the JET group [Klensin-emailaddr],
[JET-IMA]. The work drew inspiration from discussions on the "IMAA"
mailing list, sponsored by the Internet Mail Consortium and
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
especially from an early draft by Paul Hoffman and Adam Costello
[Hoffman-IMAA] that attempted to define an MUA-only solution to the
address internationalization problem.
More recent drafts have benefited from considerable discussion within
the IETF EAI Working Group and especially from suggestions and text
provided by Frank Ellermann, Philip Guenther, and Kari Hurtta, and
from extended discussions among the editors and authors of the core
documents cited in Section 3: Harald Alvestrand, Kazunori Fujiwara,
Chris Newman, Pete Resnick, Jiankang Yao, Jeff Yeh, and Yoshiro
Yoneya.
12. Change History
This document has evolved through several titles as well as the usual
version numbers. The list below tries to trace that thread as well
as changes within the substance of the document. The first document
of the series was posted as draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-00.txt in
October 2003.
12.1. draft-klensin-ima-framework: Version 00
This version supercedes draft-lee-jet-ima-00 and
draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-03. It represents a major rewrite and
change of architecture from the former and incorporates many ideas
and some text from the latter.
12.2. draft-klensin-ima-framework: Version 01
o Some clarifications of terminology (more to follow) and general
editorial improvements.
o Upgrades to reflect discussions during IETF 64.
o Improved treatment of downgrading before and after message
transport.
12.3. draft-ietf-eai-framework: Version 00
This version supercedes draft-klensin-ima-framework-01; its file name
should represent the form to be used until the IETF email address and
header internationalization ("EAI") work concludes.
o Changed "display name" terminology to be consistent with RFC 2822.
Also clarified some other terminology issues.
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
o Added a comment about the possible role of MessageSubmission
servers in downgrading.
o Removed the "IMA" terminology, converting it to either "EAI" or
prose.
o Per meeting and mailing list discussion, added conformance
statements about bouncing if neither forwarding nor downgrading
were possible and about implementation requirements.
o Updated several references. Some documents are still tentative.
o Fixed many typographical errors.
12.4. draft-ietf-eai-framework: Version 01
o Added comments about PGP, S/MIME, and DKIM to Security
Considerations
o Rationalized terminology and included terminology from scenarios
document.
12.5. draft-ietf-eai-framework: Version 02
o Clarified comment about IRIs and MAILTO.
o Identified issue with S/MIME and PGP for encapsulated content.
o Added note about the definitive "UTF8SMTP" terminology.
o Removed mail exploder related discussions and reference.
o Adjusted some requirement levels.
o Removed computed ASCII address (aka ATOMIC) related discussion.
o Added a section about delivery notifications and created a pointer
to a new document about them.
o Added a new section noting the use of email addresses as
identifiers.
o Added a new section discussing implications of downgrading to
digital signatures on messages.
o Many editorial revisions, corrections to references, etc.,
including moving the references to the other documents in the
series to "informative" -- this document does not depend on them
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
for a specification and is, itself, intended to be Informational.
13. References
13.1. Normative References
[ASCII] American National Standards Institute (formerly United
States of America Standards Institute), "USA Code for
Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4-1968, 1968.
ANSI X3.4-1968 has been replaced by newer versions with
slight modifications, but the 1968 version remains
definitive for the Internet.
[RFC1652] Klensin, J., Freed, N., Rose, M., Stefferud, E., and D.
Crocker, "SMTP Service Extension for 8bit-MIMEtransport",
RFC 1652, July 1994.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels'", RFC 2119, March 1997.
[RFC2821] Klensin, J., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol", RFC 2821,
April 2001.
[RFC3490] Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
"Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
RFC 3490, March 2003.
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.
13.2. Informative References
[DKIM-Charter]
IETF, "Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)", October 2006,
<http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dkim-charter.html>.
[Hoffman-IMAA]
Hoffman, P. and A. Costello, "Internationalizing Mail
Addresses in Applications (IMAA)", draft-hoffman-imaa-03
(work in progress), October 2003.
[I18Nemail-DSN]
Newman, C., "UTF-8 Delivery and Disposition Notification",
draft-ietf-eai-dsn-00 (work in progress), January 2007.
This document is under development by the WG. The date
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
given is an estimate for a version ready for posting.
[I18Nemail-SMTPext]
Yao, J., Ed. and W. Mao, Ed., "SMTP extension for
internationalized email address",
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-01 (work in progress), July 2006.
[I18Nemail-UTF8]
Yeh, J., "Internationalized Email Headers",
draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-01.txt (work in progress),
August 2006.
[I18Nemail-downgrade]
YONEYA, Y., Ed. and K. Fujiwara, Ed., "Downgrading
mechanism for Internationalized eMail Address (IMA)",
draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-02 (work in progress),
August 2005.
[I18Nemail-imap]
Resnick, P. and C. Newman, "IMAP Support for UTF-8",
draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-00 (work in progress), May 2006.
[I18Nemail-pop]
Newman, C., "POP3 Support for UTF-8", June 2006, <http://
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-eai-pop-00.txt>.
[I18Nemail-scenarios]
Alvestrand, H., "UTF-8 Mail: Scenarios",
draft-ietf-eai-scenarios-01 (work in progress), June 2006.
[JET-IMA] Yao, J. and J. Yeh, "Internationalized eMail Address
(IMA)", draft-lee-jet-ima-00 (work in progress),
June 2005.
[Klensin-emailaddr]
Klensin, J., "Internationalization of Email Addresses",
draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-03 (work in progress),
July 2005.
[Net-Unicode]
Klensin, J. and M. Padlipsky, "Unicode Format for Network
Interchange", April 2006, <http://www.ietf.org/
internet-drafts/draft-klensin-net-utf8-00.txt>.
[RFC2045] Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet Mail
Extensions (MIME) Part One: Format of Internet Message
Bodies", RFC 2045, November 1996.
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
[RFC2047] Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
RFC 2047, November 1996.
[RFC2231] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.
[RFC2368] Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The mailto
URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.
[RFC2663] Srisuresh, P. and M. Holdrege, "IP Network Address
Translator (NAT) Terminology and Considerations",
RFC 2663, August 1999.
[RFC2822] Resnick, P., "Internet Message Format", RFC 2822,
April 2001.
[RFC3156] Elkins, M., Del Torto, D., Levien, R., and T. Roessler,
"MIME Security with OpenPGP", RFC 3156, August 2001.
[RFC3461] Moore, K., "Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) Service
Extension for Delivery Status Notifications (DSNs)",
RFC 3461, January 2003.
[RFC3464] Moore, K. and G. Vaudreuil, "An Extensible Message Format
for Delivery Status Notifications", RFC 3464,
January 2003.
[RFC3987] Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.
[RFC4409] Gellens, R. and J. Klensin, "Message Submission for Mail",
RFC 4409, April 2006.
[RFC4690] Klensin, J., Faltstrom, P., Karp, C., and IAB, "Review and
Recommendations for Internationalized Domain Names
(IDNs)", RFC 4690, September 2006.
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
Authors' Addresses
John C Klensin
1770 Massachusetts Ave, #322
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: +1 617 491 5735
Email: john-ietf@jck.com
YangWoo Ko
ICU
119 Munjiro
Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-732
Republic of Korea
Email: yw@mrko.pe.kr
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft EAI Framework October 2006
Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Intellectual Property
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA).
Klensin & Ko Expires April 15, 2007 [Page 20]
