Re: Should we update an RFC if people refuse to implement parts of it ?

It appears that John C Klensin  <[email protected]> said:
>It would certainly be appropriate to either revise the spec or,
>better from my point of view, create a short applicability
>statement that explains the reasoning behind the SHOULD and the
>circumstances under which it would be sensible to ignore it. ...

>The thing that sometimes gets lost in "let's make the spec
>conform to what implementations are doing" discussions in this
>area is that there is an assumption behind the whole collection
>of SMTPUTF8 specs, namely that the world really wanted non-ASCII
>addressing and header field values. ...

This may seem like splitting hairs but there is a difference between
header fields that users see and fields that they don't.  Message-IDs
are still generally ASCII in EAI messages, and I don't see any
benefit from making the domain names in trace headers U-labels rather
than A-labels.

I'm not getting any pushback on Return-Path which really does need
to be UTF-8 is it's an EAI address.  I think the few MTAs that put
a FOR clause in the Received header put EAI addresses there, too.

R's,
John