BOF request - Internationalization of Email Addressing
John C Klensin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.imaa |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi. After wrestling in my own mind with whether trying to do email address internationalization at the MUA-only level by tricky encoding is really feasible and sensible --hoping it was but fearing it was not-- I've given up. If you have been following the traffic on Paul Hoffman's "IMAA" list ([email protected]), you will have noticed an explosion about "bidi issues" that makes it pretty clear that subtle ways to decompose and recompose local parts are bad news (some of those issues may actually invalidate IDNA itself). It is not, of course, the only problem. The question of what can, and cannot, sensibly be hidden from the MTAs and done at the MUA level is a rather fundamental architectural one. It is quite independent of the technical details of one proposal or another, although the degeneration of one or another type of proposal into a hopeless kludge (a state that clearly in the mind of the observer, of course) might be a strong argument for looking at the other one. In order to have at least a partially-adequate comparison, I've just sent in an I-D that explores and defines an ESMTP extension that would permit UTF-8 mailbox strings. It may not be the best way to do MTA-level internationalization, just as the IMAA proposal may or may not be the best way to do MUA-level internationalization, but it should provide a sufficient strawman to focus the issues. Partially because this appears to me to be an architectural issue, I would like to propose a BOF for Minneapolis with the hope that the high-level architectural issues (at least) can be flushed out and discussed. The reading list for that BOF should be * A general familiarity with RFC 2821 and 2822 and with IDNA * draft-hoffman-imaa-02.txt or its successor * draft-klensin-email-idn-00.txt (now in queue, to be posted RSN) ior its successor. I do not want to and am not willing to chair this BOF. I think it should be one of you, or someone chosen by/from the IAB, or someone else you select. regards, john