Re: suggestions for reducing message volume

At 1:05 PM -0700 2/3/04, Doug Royer wrote:
>Keith Moore wrote:
>
>>
>>For instance, discussion of character encoding schemes (UTF-8 or
>>otherwise), specification languages like ASN.1, presentation layers like
>>XML or *ER or 822-style headers or the formats of dates, seems
>>counterproductive.
>One of those is about the feasibility of 8 bit email addresses. UTF 
>is just the
>example. Seems productive to me.

It is more productive *for making requirements* to simply say "we 
need 8-bit email addresses". Developing the protocol that carries or 
represents that requirement can come later.

>  Of the points brought up included the
>ability to type an 8-bit email address in with a keyboard, which causes me
>pause while I try to determine if or how important that is to me.

And that requirement is "email addresses should be enterable on a keyboard".

>Talking in general terms is fine, but without a debate on the feasibility
>of the idea as it applies to the people writing the code or if it is possible
>to use the idea in the administration of the idea also seems on topic to me.

And at what point does the feasibility discussion *not* become 
protocol design before specification?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium