Minutes of the EAI working group
IETF82, Taipei, TW
2011-11-15 13:00 

The chairs called the meeting to order, reminded everyone about the
IPR rules and displayed the Note Well notice.  

They then started an overview of the status of the working group.

John Klensin explained some normative-reference problems in the WG
set, and the Area Director clarified.  It appears these issues are
getting sorted out.  Assuming this does proceed as expected, the core
protocol documents are complete.

The room accepted the agenda as posted, and substantive issues were
undertaken.

The WG turned to the POP3 document (5721bis-02).  The editor claimed
that it was ready for WGLC.  The Chair initiated WGLC in the meeting,
and would send the announcement.  WGLC concluding on 2011-11-25.

The WG turned to the IMAP document (5738bis-01).  The editor provided
a chart with a summary of the state of the discussion.  There was
considerable discussion of outstanding issues in the draft, which
resulted in some decisions.  There was quite contentious discussion
about the APPEND command.

    DECISIONS:

    - Tentative agreement not to extend LOGIN.
    - Tentative agreement to remove up-conversion as a requirement.
    - Apparent agreement to solve issue in section 3.3 by including 
      literals.

    ACTIONS:

    - Discussion about APPEND issues on mailing list
    - Resulting document after 2011-11-25.

The WG turned to the POP and IMAP downgrade document.  The editor
provided an overview of recent changes.  There was considerable
discussion of the Updates: 5322 tag.  The editor outlined a number of
issues with Message-Id downgrading.  He outlined the treatment of
unknown header fields (changed from ENCAPSULATED downgrading to
UNSTRUCTURED downgrading), and asked whether the change is ok; there
seemed to be no objection.  The editor then turned to how to handle
the downgraded header fields, as part of the IANA considerations.  A
chair (Klensin) gave instructions on how to handle the section,
replacing experimental fields by taking them out, and not by
obsoleting them.  This resulted in considerable discussion about IANA
issues.  The editor turned to some additional items that he'd
completed, then listed the things he needs to do and solicited help.
He then asked to change "Internationalised Address" ENCODED-WORD
"Removed:;" to ENCODED-WORD ":;".  This proposal caused some
discussion.  

Some discussion was taken up about whether to make the change about
TYPED address 

    DECISIONS:
    - Tentative agreement to change "Internationalised Address"
      ENCODED-WORD "Removed:;" to ENCODED-WORD ":;"

    - Tentative agreement to change from ENCAPSULATED downgrading to
      UNSTRUCTURED downgrading

    - Tentative agreement to accept Original-recipient and
      Final-recipient header processing

    ACTION: 

    - Proposed text to repair security considerations by end of week
      (Barry Leiba).

    - Pete Resnick to decide what to do about IANA considerations for
      Downgrade headers.

[There was some later discussion of some new text needed, but the
suggestion went to the mailing list; no actions resulted in the
meeting as a result of this discussion.]

Chair (Klensin) said that his goal is to have these documents sent to
the IESG very soon.

The WG turned to the question of mailing lists.  There are three
possibilities.  One is to try to do something about mailing lists.  A
second is to decide not to do it, and explain to the IESG why not to
do it.  A third is to write a document that outlines the issues but
does not give a lot of advice. 

    ACTION:

    - John Levine appointed editor for a document outlining what the
      problems are and arguing that there should not be a standards
      track document on this topic.

The WG turned to the question of "Advice documents".  The primary
question is whether to take a break and allow deployment experience,
or whether to prepare the document set.  There was some discussion
about the value of some documents of this sort.  Jiankang Yao made a
presentation arguing that such advice documents are needed.  This
raised some more discussion of the value of such documents, with the
emphasis on getting RFCs or something similarly official into the hands
of operators and implementers.  There were several suggestions on how
to achieve the practical goal of delivering something to people who
need something (semi-)official in order to inspire them to implement
and deploy.

At the end of the discussion, the chairs called for any other
business; hearing none, the chairs adjourned the meeting.