A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications Area. For additional information, please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. +++ Email Address Internationalization (eai) ========================================== Current Status: Active Working Group Chair(s): Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Applications Area Director(s): Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> Scott Hollenbeck <sah@428cobrajet.net> Applications Area Advisor: Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> Mailing Lists: General Discussion: ima@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima Archive: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima/index.html Description of Working Group: Since early in the effort to internationalize domain names, which resulted in the standards associated with IDNA, it has been understood that internationalization of email address local parts is required. At the same time, email address internationalization poses a series of special problems. Constraints on the interpretation of local-parts by any system other than the final delivery one make address encoding nearly impossible. The need to use addresses in both the email envelope and in header fields, and to do so in ways that are at least compatible, suggests that this is not a simple and isolated problem. This working group will address one basic approach to email internationalization. That approach is based on the use of an SMTP extension to enable both the use of UTF-8 in envelope address local- parts and optionally in domain-parts and the use of UTF-8 in mail headers -- both in address contexts and wherever encoded-words are permitted today. Its initial target will be a set of experimental RFCs that specify the details of this approach and provide the basis for generating and testing interoperable implementations. Its work will include examining whether "downgrading" -- transforming an internationalized message to one that is compatible with unextended SMTP clients and servers and unextended MUAs -- is feasible and appropriate and, if it is, specifying a way to do so. If it is not, the WG will evaluate whether the effort is worth taking forward. Other approaches may be considered by the formation of other working groups. Key parts of this effort include extended analyses and, if necessary, proof of concept in three areas in addition to smooth operation when all systems and components along a message path have been upgraded to support the new facilities. They are o Examination of scenarios for the appearance of these facilities to users, including ways in which alternate addresses may be specified if those are needed for downgrading. o Examination of different locations at which downgrading might be required and accomplished, differentiating between requirements and capabilities at the point of origin (at or before the submission server), those that exist while the message is in transit, and those that apply after SMTP "final delivery" or in the logical vicinity or an IMAP or POP server. o Examination of the "mailing list question", i.e., how a mixture of traditional and internationalized addresses on a mailing list will impact message flows, error reports, and delivery notifications in all plausible combinations of servers and addresses, including internationalizated and traditional reverse paths. Once the Experimental RFCs are completed and implemented, the experience gathered will be evaluated. If the approach is found to have been successful (using criteria the WG will establish as an early work item), the WG will be rechartered to update the documents for processing onto the standards track. 1.6. Deliverables The following deliverables are foreseen in this charter. The WG chairs may structure the deliverables into specific documents or document sets as needed. Adding or removing documents outside of these deliverables will require a charter update. o Overview and architecture (Info) o Interworking scenarios, including the "mailing list question" (Info) o SMTP extensions specification (Exp) o Header format specification (Exp) o Downgrading specification in SMTP (Exp) o Downgrading specification in POP servers (Exp) o Downgrading specification in IMAP servers (Exp) o Results and evaluation of experiment (Info) Going forward, it is possible that the SMTP downgrading specification will go for Informational due to the difficulty of fully specifying all necessary behavior. Additional possible documents suggested: Advice for MUA implementors (Info) Goals and Milestones: Done Overview/architecture draft first Done Interworking scenarios first draft Done SMTP Extensions first draft Done Header format first draft Mar 2006 Downgrading in SMTP first draft Mar 2006 Downgrading in POP first draft Mar 2006 Downgrading in IMAP first draft Jun 2006 Overview/architecture draft to IESG Jun 2006 Interworking scenarios to IESG Sep 2006 SMTP Extensions to IESG Sep 2006 Header format to IESG Sep 2006 Downgrading in SMTP to IESG Sep 2006 Downgrading in POP to IESG Sep 2006 Downgrading in IMAP to IESG Dec 2006 Results and evaluation first draft Mar 2007 Results and evaluation to IESG Mar 2007 Group recharter for standards track _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
