Re: Can we back up a bit and ask some basicquestions?Analternate model

At 8:03 PM +0000 2/19/03, Roy Badami wrote:
>I think the only way this would be viable is if it was mandatory to
>convert to IMAA-ACE rather than bounce.

So we need two mechanisms instead of one? And the advantage of that is...?

For those of you who didn't follow the IDN WG for the past few years, 
this is highly analogous to the debate that happened there. The whole 
idea of a "transition" sounds great until you realize that the second 
format is going to be with us forever. Given that the transition 
strategy is harder than simply going with IMAA-ACE, there has to be a 
good reason for it.

I don't consider "UTF-8 is good" to be a good enough reason. (And 
before anyone here calls me "anti-UTF-8", please look at the top of 
the first page of the UTF-8 RFC.)

>The point is that it *is* viable to regard IMAA-ACE as a transition
>strategy to a native UTF-8 format (at least as far as SMTP based mail
>goes) because we have a robust negotiation mechanism.  In this way,
>IMAs are different from IDNs.

Right: we were smart enough not to do that in the IDN WG.

>I'm not necessarily saying it's a good idea, just noting that it is
>possible.

Generally, a stronger argument than that is needed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium