Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, eai mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, eai chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-06.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications' (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-06.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-rfc5337bis-dsn/
Technical Summary Delivery status notifications (DSNs) are critical to the correct operation of an email system. However, the existing Draft Standards (RFC 3461, RFC 3462, RFC 3464) are presently limited to US-ASCII text in the machine-readable portions of the protocol. This specification adds a new address type for international email addresses so an original recipient address with non-US-ASCII characters can be correctly preserved even after downgrading. This also provides updated content return media types for delivery status notifications and message disposition notifications to support use of the new address type. Working Group Summary There were nothing controversial nor rough for this document. Document Quality This document was reviewed by many in WG with expertise in mail. Many thanks to Elliot Lear for external review. And big thanks to Tony Hansen for his effort to make this document ready for publication. Personnel Joseph Yee <firstname.lastname@example.org> is the document shepherd. Pete Resnick <email@example.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.