Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email
RFC 6530
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2019-06-15
|
12 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (removed Errata tag) |
2019-06-11
|
12 | (System) | Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Errata tag) |
2015-10-14
|
12 | (System) | Notify list changed from eai-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Tim Polk |
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert |
2012-08-22
|
12 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Russ Housley |
2012-02-17
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue. |
2012-02-17
|
12 | (System) | RFC published |
2011-12-06
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2011-12-06
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from No IC |
2011-12-05
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent. |
2011-12-05
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2011-12-05
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2011-12-05
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2011-12-05
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup text changed |
2011-12-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | Removed from agenda for telechat |
2011-12-01
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation. |
2011-12-01
|
12 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded |
2011-11-28
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-11-28
|
12 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-11-27
|
12 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded |
2011-11-26
|
12 | Pete Resnick | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead. |
2011-11-17
|
12 | David Black | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: David Black. |
2011-11-14
|
12 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2011-11-14
|
12 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call. |
2011-11-03
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black |
2011-11-03
|
12 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Black |
2011-10-31
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2011-10-31
|
12 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested. The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Email Address Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document: - 'Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email' as a Proposed Standard Please note that an earlier revision of this document was already approved by the IESG for publication as Informational. This document has references to and from draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. As a result of IESG comments during IESG Evaluation of those two documents, the WG felt that they needed to make changes to this document and change its status to Standards Track from Informational. It is now being re-considered for Proposed Standard. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-11-14. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Full use of electronic mail throughout the world requires that (subject to other constraints) people be able to use close variations on 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 document set also includes discussion of key assumptions and issues in deploying fully internationalized email. This document is a replacement for RFC 4952; it reflects additional issues identified since that document was published. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2011-10-31
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Last Call text changed |
2011-10-29
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Approval announcement text changed |
2011-10-29
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Last Call was requested |
2011-10-29
|
12 | Pete Resnick | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation. |
2011-10-29
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2011-10-29
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Approval announcement text changed |
2011-10-29
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Approval announcement text regenerated |
2011-10-29
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Last Call text changed |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Ballot has been issued |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Created "Approve" ballot |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-12-01 |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Informational |
2011-10-28
|
12 | Pete Resnick | State changed to AD Evaluation from RFC Ed Queue. This document has references to and from draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. Those two documents went through IESG … State changed to AD Evaluation from RFC Ed Queue. This document has references to and from draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. Those two documents went through IESG Evaluation. As a result of IESG comments, the WG felt that they needed to make changes to this document *and* change its status to Standards Track from Informational. RFC Editor removed it from their queue and it is back with the IESG. |
2011-10-27
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Note field has been cleared |
2011-10-27
|
12 | Pete Resnick | Responsible AD has been changed to Pete Resnick from Alexey Melnikov |
2011-10-25
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-11.txt |
2010-09-28
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-27
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2010-09-27
|
12 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2010-09-27
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2010-09-27
|
12 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2010-09-27
|
12 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2010-09-27
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-10.txt |
2010-09-25
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Derek Atkins. |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | After discussing this with IESG: this document is going to be published as Informational |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: changed to ' ' by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Intended Status has been changed to Informational from Proposed Standard by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-09-23
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-09.txt |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Tim Polk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Tim Polk |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by David Black on 10 Sep 2010 raised several issues. The authors seem to agree that changes are appropriate, … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by David Black on 10 Sep 2010 raised several issues. The authors seem to agree that changes are appropriate, but a revised Internet-Draft has not been posted yet. |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Russ Housley has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Russ Housley |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot discuss] There was a brief discussion amongst the IESG about the intended status before IETF Last Call, which seemed to support Informational Status. However, … [Ballot discuss] There was a brief discussion amongst the IESG about the intended status before IETF Last Call, which seemed to support Informational Status. However, the document was Last Called for PS and is on the telechat for PS. I would like to discuss why the sponsor feels standards track was the correct choice. |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Tim Polk |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot comment] p21: s/Expecting and most/Expecting most/ |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Dan Romascanu | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu |
2010-09-23
|
12 | Tim Polk | [Ballot comment] The phrase "this document" is used in a confusing manner in the first two bullets of section 5. For example, bullet 1 reads … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2010-09-22
|
12 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks |
2010-09-22
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot comment] Thank you for this clear, well-written document. Several sentences struck me as difficult to parse... 1. In Section 8.1: It is likely … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2010-09-22
|
12 | Peter Saint-Andre | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre |
2010-09-22
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot discuss] > Intended status: Informational and Section 5322, paragraph 3: > Although this document is Informational, those > requirements are consistent … [Ballot discuss] > Intended status: Informational and Section 5322, paragraph 3: > Although this document is Informational, those > requirements are consistent with requirements specified in the > Standards Track documents in this set as described in Section 5. DISCUSS: The datatracker has this going for PS. Which is correct? |
2010-09-22
|
12 | Lars Eggert | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert |
2010-09-21
|
12 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel |
2010-09-21
|
12 | David Harrington | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by David Harrington |
2010-09-21
|
12 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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"? |
2010-09-21
|
12 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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"? |
2010-09-21
|
12 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms |
2010-09-18
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-08.txt |
2010-09-18
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by David Black on 10 Sep 2010 raised several issues. The authors seem to agree that changes are appropriate, … [Ballot discuss] The Gen-ART Review by David Black on 10 Sep 2010 raised several issues. The authors seem to agree that changes are appropriate, but a revised Internet-Draft has not been posted yet. |
2010-09-18
|
12 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Russ Housley |
2010-09-15
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-15
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by Cindy Morgan |
2010-09-13
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-09-23 by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-09-09
|
12 | Amanda Baber | We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. |
2010-09-02
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2010-09-02
|
12 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins |
2010-08-31
|
12 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan |
2010-08-31
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Last Call was requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-31
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-31
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Note]: 'I set the document status to PS, but I and the WG is happy for this to proceed as Informational ' added by Alexey … [Note]: 'I set the document status to PS, but I and the WG is happy for this to proceed as Informational ' added by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-31
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Informational by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-31
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed |
2010-08-31
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-07.txt |
2010-08-31
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-29
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-29
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Ballot has been issued by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-29
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Created "Approve" ballot |
2010-08-29
|
12 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2010-08-29
|
12 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2010-08-29
|
12 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2010-08-26
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-26
|
12 | Alexey Melnikov | Draft added in state Publication Requested by Alexey Melnikov |
2010-08-23
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-06.txt |
2010-08-22
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-05.txt |
2010-08-20
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-04.txt |
2010-08-16
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-03.txt |
2010-07-12
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-02.txt |
2010-07-03
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-01.txt |
2010-06-25
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-00.txt |