Rolling back the clock a bit here...
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 11:11 AM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
First, it appears that it is making a more fundamental change to
EPP than just allowing for SMTPUTF8 (aka "non-ASCII" or "EAI")
addresses local parts. The second paragraph of the Introduction
says
"A new form of EPP extension, referred to as a
Functional Extension, is defined and used..."
and Section 4 defines that mechanism. Because there are people
who might look at an announcement of Last Call for an
internationalization-related extension and say either "someone
else will look at those complexities" or "oh, sure, non-ASCII
addresses are good", and move on, introduction of that new type
of extension should be highlighted in the Abstract and should
have been included in the Last Call so as to draw attention from
those who are, e.g., concerned about the tradeoffs associated
with adding complexity to EPP.
Can you please elucidate a bit on what sort of callout you'd like to see in the Last Call for documents such as this in the future? Or is it the case that the Abstract should've said something different and thus be automatically reflected in the Last Call?
I'm wondering if there's something the IESG should be adjusting here for future documents that touch this space.
-MSK
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
