headers
YAO Jiankang | 1 Jun 2006 05:36
Picon

Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
To: <ima <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:46 AM
Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt


> The draft refers, in many places, to "IMA" (whose definition can only be  
> found in the Abstract). I suspect all these need changing, probably to  
> "EAI", with the term defined somewhere in 1.3. Or maybe to "IEmail", which  
> is to be the EHLO keyword.

we will consider to use  "IEmail" or  "EAI"


> 
> 2.1.  Framework for the Internationalization Extension
> 
>     3.  No parameter values are defined for this EHLO keyword value.  In
>         order to permit future (although unanticipated) extensions, the
>         EHLO response MUST NOT contain any parameters for that keyword.
>         If a parameter appears, the SMTP client that is conformant to
>         this version of this specification MUST treat the ESMTP response
>         as if the IMA keyword did not appear.
> 
> s/IMA/IEmail/

will use IEmail.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John C Klensin | 1 Jun 2006 11:52

Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-smtp-00.txt


Several comments below.  Let's make an agenda item for Beijing 
on terminology to be used.  The decisions are more or less 
arbitrary, but we need to be consistent.  And I, at least, have 
achieved confusion.

--On Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:36 AM +0800 YAO Jiankang 
<yaojk <at> cnnic.cn> wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
> To: <ima <at> ietf.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:46 AM
> Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt
>...
>>     6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support
>>     for, and announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
>>
>> Hmmm! I see that this means you are supposed to include a
>> BODY=8BITMIME   parameter in your MAIL FROM command if the
>> body uses TCE 8bit (highly   probable in an EAI message). Do
>> agents currently do that in practice?
>
> can I suggest that where in the fields there use MIME now ,
> still use MIME in the email message or content. we only update
> the fields containing the UET-8 email address to UTF8.

I don't understand this response, but I'm not sure I understand 
Charles's comment, partially because there is no client practice
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Harald Alvestrand | 1 Jun 2006 15:03
Picon

8BITMIME and BODY=8BITMIME (Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-smtp-00.txt)

John C Klensin wrote:

>
> Several comments below.  Let's make an agenda item for Beijing on 
> terminology to be used.  The decisions are more or less arbitrary, but 
> we need to be consistent.  And I, at least, have achieved confusion.
>
>
> --On Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:36 AM +0800 YAO Jiankang 
> <yaojk <at> cnnic.cn> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
>> To: <ima <at> ietf.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:46 AM
>> Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt
>> ...
>>
>>>     6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support
>>>     for, and announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
>>>
>>> Hmmm! I see that this means you are supposed to include a
>>> BODY=8BITMIME   parameter in your MAIL FROM command if the
>>> body uses TCE 8bit (highly   probable in an EAI message). Do
>>> agents currently do that in practice?
>>
>>
>> can I suggest that where in the fields there use MIME now ,
>> still use MIME in the email message or content. we only update
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John C Klensin | 1 Jun 2006 15:23

Re: 8BITMIME and BODY=8BITMIME (Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-smtp-00.txt)


--On Thursday, 01 June, 2006 06:03 -0700 Harald Alvestrand
<harald <at> alvestrand.no> wrote:

> John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Several comments below.  Let's make an agenda item for
>> Beijing on  terminology to be used.  The decisions are more
>> or less arbitrary, but  we need to be consistent.  And I, at
>> least, have achieved confusion.
>> 
>> 
>> --On Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:36 AM +0800 YAO Jiankang 
>> <yaojk <at> cnnic.cn> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
>>> To: <ima <at> ietf.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:46 AM
>>> Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt
>>> ...
>>> 
>>>>     6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support
>>>>     for, and announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
>>>> 
>>>> Hmmm! I see that this means you are supposed to include a
>>>> BODY=8BITMIME   parameter in your MAIL FROM command if the
>>>> body uses TCE 8bit (highly   probable in an EAI message). Do
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
fujiwara | 1 Jun 2006 17:37
Picon
Favicon

[EAI] terminology issue

I need clear terminology definitions.

(1) Protocol extension name : EAI or IEmail ?

  it is used as SMTP extention name, MIME message type name, and protocol name.

(2) a name which specifies US-ASCII mail address : US-ASCII address?

         ascii <at> ascii

(3) a name which specifies internationalized mail address: IMA?
       (3) does not include (2).

         utf8 <at> utf8
	 ascii <at> utf8
	 utf8 <at> ascii

(4) (2)+(3) : US-ASCII address + IMA : mail address?
       all mail addresses which are supported by EAI.

--
Kazunori Fujiwara, JPRS
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
John C Klensin | 1 Jun 2006 21:17

Re: [EAI] terminology issue


--On Friday, 02 June, 2006 00:37 +0900 fujiwara <at> jprs.co.jp wrote:

> I need clear terminology definitions.
> 
> (1) Protocol extension name : EAI or IEmail ?

EAI has no mnemonic value in any language.  IEmail seems to be
the name of products from several companies and is sometimes
used as an abbreviation for "Internet email" (as compared to
various non-Internet things).   I still recommend i18nemail (or
i16demail for purists) as minimizing confusion and having some
significance.

>   it is used as SMTP extention name, MIME message type name,
> and protocol name.

> (2) a name which specifies US-ASCII mail address : US-ASCII
> address?
> 
>          ascii <at> ascii

No good suggestions.  "traditional", "legacy", and variations on
"2821-address" come to mind.

> (3) a name which specifies internationalized mail address: IMA?
>        (3) does not include (2).
> 
>          utf8 <at> utf8
> 	 ascii <at> utf8
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Xiaodong Lee | 2 Jun 2006 02:47
Picon

Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-smtp-00.txt

Good suggestion, Terminology issues should be considered, and I will 
update the meeting homepage to add this into agenda.

-- 
-- Xiaodong LEE [The best answer is doing]
   +86-10-58813020 
   mailto:lee <at> cnnic.cn
   http://www.lixiaodong.cn

John C Klensin wrote:
>
> Several comments below.  Let's make an agenda item for Beijing on 
> terminology to be used.  The decisions are more or less arbitrary, but 
> we need to be consistent.  And I, at least, have achieved confusion.
>
>
> --On Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:36 AM +0800 YAO Jiankang 
> <yaojk <at> cnnic.cn> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
>> To: <ima <at> ietf.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:46 AM
>> Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt
>> ...
>>>     6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support
>>>     for, and announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
>>>
>>> Hmmm! I see that this means you are supposed to include a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Xiaodong Lee | 2 Jun 2006 10:29
Picon

[EAI] update the meeting homepage

Hi,

I have updated the meeting homepage:
1)Add terminologies issue discussion in meeting agenda
2)Add SIP-based conference call support for meeting facilities

Regards!

--

-- 
-- Xiaodong LEE [The best answer is doing]
   +86-10-58813020 
   mailto:lee <at> cnnic.cn
   http://www.lixiaodong.cn
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Charles Lindsey | 2 Jun 2006 12:08
Picon
Picon

Re: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-smtp-00.txt

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:52:41 +0100, John C Klensin <klensin <at> jck.com> wrote:

> --On Thursday, June 01, 2006 11:36 AM +0800 YAO Jiankang  
> <yaojk <at> cnnic.cn> wrote:
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Charles Lindsey" <chl <at> clerew.man.ac.uk>
>> To: <ima <at> ietf.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 2:46 AM
>> Subject: [EAI] Comments on draft-ietf-eai-00.txt
>> ...
>>>     6.  Servers offering this extension MUST provide support
>>>     for, and announce, the 8BITMIME extension [RFC1652].
>>>
>>> Hmmm! I see that this means you are supposed to include a
>>> BODY=8BITMIME   parameter in your MAIL FROM command if the
>>> body uses TCE 8bit (highly   probable in an EAI message). Do
>>> agents currently do that in practice?

> I don't understand this response, but I'm not sure I understand  
> Charles's comment, partially because there is no client practice yet.   
> My assumption is that clients or servers supporting EAI MUST be  
> fully-conformant with 8BITMIME.  I assume that makes the answer to  
> Charles's question not "supposed to" but "MUST".

Sure, I had just been reading RFC 1652 and came across that BODY  
parameter. I was asking whether implementations actually used it in the  
real world (sure they "MUST", but since when did that stop implementors  
 from taking shortcuts :-( ).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
John C Klensin | 2 Jun 2006 14:55

Re: [EAI] update the meeting homepage


--On Friday, 02 June, 2006 16:29 +0800 Xiaodong Lee
<lee <at> cnnic.cn> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have updated the meeting homepage:
> 1)Add terminologies issue discussion in meeting agenda
> 2)Add SIP-based conference call support for meeting facilities

Thank you.  Two things...

(1) I assume that the provision for sending IP addresses is for
video conference connections and that there are no blocks to
outbound IPSec or SSH tunnels from the meeting site.  Correct?

(2) The list of documents is not up-to-date.  For documents
issued since IETF Dallas, pointers to more current versions from
the main WG web page
(http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/eai-charter.html)

For those who might not have picked up the earlier message, the
meeting site to which Xiaodong refers is at
http://www.asrc.cn/eai.htm

See you soon.

      john
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane