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

> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:59:53AM +0800, Jiankang Yao wrote:

> > > I recognize the distinction while also realizing that, as you know,
> > > things often leak.  My recollection (if Jiankang is following this,
> > > his memory is probably better than mine) is that the WG explicitly
> > > discussed the issue and concluded that U-labels were a better idea
> > > than A-labels.
> >
> > Yes, I think so. The EAI WG discussed this issue.  Section 3.7.3.
> > Trace Information  encourages to use UTF-8 form.  One reason I think
> > is that trace information will be put into header for human reading.

> But, and this is crucial, the human reading the trace information is
> rarely either the sender or the ultimate recipient of the message, who
> are generally presented with a subset of the headers fields ("To", "Cc",
> "Date", "Subject" ...).  Examination of trace headers is far more likely
> to a task for a mail system administrator.  They're used in abuse
> reports and the like, and a uniform representation is more important
> than familiarity to the community of readers of some given language.

And what the admin usually wants to do is either a comparison or check the
domain with the DNS in some way. So an A-label can be more convenient.

And in the unlikely event an admin needs to translate the A-label to a
U-label, there are an abundance of tools that I can use to do it.

> Mail system administrators don't necessarily read the same scripts as
> their end users.  Mail system administrators would reasonably expect
> the EHLO name recorded in trace headers to match the name received in
> the actual EHLO command on the wire (and recorded in their email logs).

> > UTF-8 is better for human reading.  A-label is ugly for human reading,
> > but ok for machine reading.

> Sure, if the text is Russian, some Latin-based alphabet or at a stretch
> Greek, I can more easily distinguish one U-label string from another
> than an A-label form like "xn--b1adqpd3ao5c.org", ... and yet I'd much
> rather see A-labels in trace headers than Arabic or Chinese.  The text
> in 3.7.3 is not something I'm inclined to implement.

Actually, it depends on the A-labels. Because of the compression involved
A-labels often emphasize small differences that may be difficult to see in a
crap monospaced font for a non-Latin script, even one you're familiar with.

> Specifying the use of U-labels in the "from" and "by" clauses rather
> looks like a bad judgement call, rough consensus or not.  Until the
> Protocol Police show up, I'm sticking with A-labels. :-(

Me too.

				Ned