John, Again, thank you for your detailed layout of the issue. The current state of the draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai is to allow for either an ASCII or a SMTPUTF8 address for a set of EPP extensions that currently support a single required or optional ASCII e-mail address. Supporting an all-ASCII fallback address, means that the single e-mail address would need to shift from a one to two or even a one-to-many relationship across the EPP extensions along with the appropriate implicit or explicit signaling of the e-mail type, which is why it comes down to a protocol cardinality issue. This is a material change that needs further discussion in the REGEXT WG. I hope that you can participate in the discussion. Thanks, -- JG James Gould Fellow Engineer jgould@xxxxxxxxxxxx <applewebdata://13890C55-AAE8-4BF3-A6CE-B4BA42740803/jgould@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 703-948-3271 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 Verisign.com <http://verisigninc.com/> On 9/13/22, 3:04 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: James, My apologies for not having responded to your note sooner. I've been preoccupied with several unrelated things. I greatly appreciate the changes to use an existing EPP extension framework and to correct the terminology error of EAI -> SMTPUTF8. I agree that the more substantive SMTPUTF8 technical issues should go back to the WG. However, in order that the discussion you suggest for IETF 115 be useful and not just lead to another round of heated Last Call discussions, I think that, for the benefit of those who have been following the discussion closely and those who should have been, it is important to be clear about what the disagreement is about. When you characterize the issue as "e-mail cardinality", it makes it sound, at least to me (maybe everyone in the WG has a better understanding) like this is some subtle technical matter. It really isn't. The EAI WG was very clear during the development of the SMTPUTF8 standards that the biggest problems with non-ASCII email addresses were going to be with user agents (MUAs) (and, to some degree, with IMAP and POP servers that are often modeled as part of MUAs) and not with SMTP transport over the Internet. Making an MUA tailored to one particular language and script (in addition to ASCII), or even a handful of them, is fairly easy. Making one that can deal well with all possible SMTPUTF8 addresses is very difficult (some would claim impossible, at least without per-language, or per-language-group, plugins or equivalent). The implication of that problem is that, except with rather specific constraints, fallback all-ASCII addresses are important. I'd be delighted to have a discussion about the types of constraints the would be needed, but every possibility involves a policy decision about DNS registration management and is hence out of IETF scope. I claim didn't take the EAI WG to figure the need for fallback addresses out: it gets fairly easy as soon as someone thinks about, e.g., how their favorite MUA would manage addresses, and potentially error messages, that use a relatively complex writing system that has not been in active, non-scholarly, use for millennia. This is why, unless non-ASCII email addresses are used strictly within a particular writing system environment (and restricted to those writing systems), it is strongly recommended that an all-ASCII email address be available as a fallback. As we have discussed, I am not suggesting such an address be required in any particular transaction any more than you are suggesting that registries be required to accept non-ASCII email addresses at all. Subject to whatever regulatory, contractual, or other constraints might apply, decisions about whether to allow (or encourage) such addresses, what constraints to impose on the scripts or domains that might be used in the addresses if any, and whether a all-ASCII address (or an all-ASCII local part) should be allowed or required in a particular transaction, is not a matter for the IETF. However, providing for the optional transmission of a non-ASCII address without providing for the optional transmission of an all-ASCII alternative is as much of a policy decision as trying to build rules about when non-ASCII addresses should be permitted would be. If the IETF (or at least REGEXT) believe that it is a good idea to provide for non-ASCII addresses, let's do that right. And "right" requires either provision for a an all-ASCII alternative or a globally agreed profile of what sorts of non-ASCII addresses are valid. It is not the sort of thing that can reasonably be ignored or postponed for future work, at least without creating back-door policy decisions and/or interoperability problems, or the IETF is willing to standardize a protocol with known serious deficiencies on the assumption that those "details" can be worked out later. thanks, john --On Wednesday, August 31, 2022 17:26 +0000 "Gould, James" <jgould=40verisign.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai-16 was posted that addresses two of > the issues that you raised, by changing to use a > command-response extension, and to replace the EAI references > with SMTPUTF8. I believe the remaining issue of the e-mail > cardinality needs to be brought back to the REGEXT working > group for discussion. I've requested an agenda item at > IETF-115 for it and I encourage you to participate in the > meeting to discuss it first-hand if the agenda item is > accepted. > > Thank you for all your detailed feedback and discussion! -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
