On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I see no way to explain the narrow EAI use case in this context >> without either dragging in a whole bunch of EAI that has no business >> being here or leaving various things dangling. > > ack. mumble. > > So I'll suggest a bit of an amalgam, including a cross reference of the type > I prefer to avoid: > > 1. State that this removes a restriction that was never essential. > > 2. State that the timing of this removal is to accomodate EAI and for its > use of the now-available features, see [RFCxxxx]. On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:28 AM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote (with a large part of this distribution list removed): >>So, is it better to put in a sentence about representing non-ASCII >>text in the group name without including a replyable address? > > The main motivation is to provide a syntax for a non-replyable address > in From: and Sender: headers for cases where that is appropriate. See > the EAI downgrade documents for a concrete example. > > A secondary motivation is to remove an arcane restriction that has not > turned out to be useful in practice. Dave and John (Levine) are both suggesting an informative reference from this document to some piece of the EAI documents (which I guess should be one or both of draft-ietf-eai-5738bis, Section 7, and draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade, Section 3.2.1). Ned and John (Klensin), can you live with that (I know it's not your preference). All: which (or both) should the reference be to? Barry