Dear John
On Tue, 23 Aug 2022, 04:27 John C Klensin, <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Monday, August 22, 2022 16:01 +0000 "Gould, James"
<jgould@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John,
>
> How about if we change the approach to use the well-understood
> command-response extension?
If things were changed to create an extension type that is
defined in RFC 5730 rather than creating a new type, that would
certainly eliminate the need to update 5730 (or explain clearly
why that was not necessary).
That, of course, leaves the more substantive SMTPUTF8 issues,
particularly the need for a slot for an alternate all-ASCII
address.
No. SMTPUTF8 email address _is_ email address. Otherwise we are stuck with email addresses of first-class and of second-class forever.
We don't need separate slot for all-ASCII addresses.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
