Tony Hansen | 17 Sep 01:55 2010
Picon

Fwd: NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations

fyi. Please nominate someone today.

    Tony Hansen

PS. Yeah, I'm on the nomcom this year.

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Date: From: To:
NomCom 2010-2011: Call for More Nominations
Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:26:02 -0700 (PDT)
NomCom Chair <nomcom-chair-EgrivxUAwEY@public.gmane.org>
IETF Announcement list <ietf-announce-EgrivxUAwEY@public.gmane.org>


Hi Folks, Nominations have slowed down dramatically, so this update is to enlist the community in an effort to pick up the pace. We are very far behind in nominations for all the open positions but in particular we need nominations for the IESG and IAOC open positions. There have been no nominations received (other than for the incumbents) in INT, RAI, and RTG, and only 1 for OPS. Likewise, in IAOC there have been no nominations submitted other than the incumbent. The acceptance rates of those nominated has also been very slow. In order to initiate the open list of willing nominees we are in need of a reasonable number of acceptances, and due to the low number of nominees and acceptances have delayed the start date for publishing the first open list to September 20. So if you have been nominated and are willing to serve, but have not yet confirmed this by email back to the NomCom, please do so as soon as possible. We need Community input and participation! We cannot properly execute the task of selecting the best candidates for these positions with so few nominations and acceptances. So, please consider making nominations for the open positions, in particular those for which we have so few nominations – it takes just a few minutes of your time. Right now, we just need the names/email addresses. Why do we need more nominations? Well, even if you think a willing incumbent is doing a very good job and should be returned, his or her ability to serve again might be impacted by unforeseen circumstances between now and March. NomCom needs to consider multiple nominees to be prepared in the event one or more candidates is unable to serve come next March and to ensure we have chosen the best candidate. There are several ways you can help the IETF Nominating Committee. - You may nominate yourself. - You can nominate someone you know whom you think would do a good job. Do not worry about whether they might already be nominated. We would much prefer to receive the same nomination several times rather than miss a good person we should consider. How to submit Nominations: -------------------------- The list of positions we need to fill, and the provided Job Descriptions, and forms for nominations, can be found in the call for nominations at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ann/nomcom/2468/ You may enter a nomination by going to the following URL https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/group/nomcom/10/nominate You may also nominate someone by sending an email to nomcom10-EgrivxUAwEY@public.gmane.org and giving us their name, email address and the open position you are nominating them for. We will take care of the rest. If you are asked for a user name and password, use an existing ietf login and password. If you need a login and password, request one from the tools page at the following URL http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newlogin Open List: ---------- As you already know, NomCom 2010-2011 will follow the policy for "Open Disclosure of Willing Nominees" described in RFC 5680. Feedback Collection: -------------------- Once the open list is available, the entire community will be invited to provide feedback. I will send a further announcement requesting feedback on the nominees, describing how to submit feedback, and how to view the open list of nominees. Thank you, Thomas Walsh Chair, NomCom 2010-2011 nomcom-chair-EgrivxUAwEY@public.gmane.org twalsh-3r7Miqu9kMnR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce


Stephan Wehner | 18 Sep 06:44 2010
Picon

Length Limit for display-name


Section 3.4. Address Specification of RFC2822 specifies

name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr

What are the length limits on the display-name field? I take it a long
display-name
value would simply be folded as described under 2.2.3. Long Header Fields

Are there practical length limits with respect to current SMTP clients
and servers?

Stephan

Hector Santos | 18 Sep 07:50 2010

Re: Length Limit for display-name


Stephan Wehner wrote:
> Section 3.4. Address Specification of RFC2822 specifies
> 
> name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr
> 
> What are the length limits on the display-name field? I take it a long
> display-name
> value would simply be folded as described under 2.2.3. Long Header Fields
> 
> Are there practical length limits with respect to current SMTP clients
> and servers?

Stephen,

The display name is not used in SMTP. Only the actual address is used 
at the SMTP level.

However, in the message 5322 headers itself, the MUA, mail readers, 
display systems, etc, will use the display name extracted from 
5322.From and 5322.To

The only practical limit I can think of is:

old days: 80 character limit or 72 to limit single line console display:

      12345......................80
      From: display-name

For the new days with gui, I guess that would be dependent on the GUI 
mail reader and how it is displayed and also limits it as well. We are 
still constrained with some practical limit for display a pretty 
message header frame even with GUI. GUI affords you doubling up one or 
more fields on a single row.

      From:                             Date:
      To:
      Subject

But some software will truncate and triple dot it so it fits.

     From: This User has a long Displ....  Date: xx/xx/xxxx xx:xxpm

For our backend software, we still display names to 72 characters 
since it carried on from the old days and also, before email, most of 
the time a display name was the login name, and 72 characters was 
sufficient for any person's name. :)

Also, think the growing Mobil market.  There for sure you have design 
rendering limits, but that should relaxed with the growing tablet 
market with larger screens.

Hope this helps.

--

-- 
Hector, Engineering & Technical Support
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com (sales)
http://www.winserver.com (support)
http://www.winserver.com/AupInfo (Online AUP Help)
Office: 305-248-3204

ned+ietf-822 | 18 Sep 17:51 2010

Re: Length Limit for display-name


> Section 3.4. Address Specification of RFC2822 specifies

> name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr

> What are the length limits on the display-name field? I take it a long
> display-name
> value would simply be folded as described under 2.2.3. Long Header Fields

AFAICT the relevant specifications impose no limits on the size of the
display-name. What implementations actually do is another matter, of course. I
believe I've encountered limits as low as 64 octets. I certainly wouldn't
recommend putting in stuff longer than 100 or so octets and  expect it to pass
through everything intact.

> Are there practical length limits with respect to current SMTP clients
> and servers?

Given that there are clients which don't show users the display-name at all, I
suppose the practical length limit could be seen as zero. Those clients that do
display this information often allocated a fairly narrow field to it, so I
wouldn't count on anything more than 30-40 characters (not octets) being
visible.

				Ned

Stephan Wehner | 20 Sep 19:56 2010
Picon

Re: Length Limit for display-name


On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed <at> mrochek.com> wrote:
>
>> Section 3.4. Address Specification of RFC2822 specifies
>
>> name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr
>
>> What are the length limits on the display-name field? I take it a long
>> display-name
>> value would simply be folded as described under 2.2.3. Long Header Fields
>
> AFAICT the relevant specifications impose no limits on the size of the
> display-name. What implementations actually do is another matter, of course. I
> believe I've encountered limits as low as 64 octets. I certainly wouldn't
> recommend putting in stuff longer than 100 or so octets and  expect it to pass
> through everything intact.
>

Thanks a lot for your replies, Ned and Hector!

Indeed, I tracked down the display-name rule in

 display-name    =       phrase
 phrase          =       1*word / obs-phrase

where 1*word implies no length limit (RFC 2234)

When I asked about clients, I meant clients that connect to the mail
server to send an email message, not end-user
or display clients. For example, qmail-remote, and gateways when
passing a message to another server. Here
I thought the To: header being within the message they would not touch
it, or parse it and just pass it on, so
that "trace fields are prepended to the message" (A.4 in the Appendix )

Would such clients leave a display-name unchanged? I would think only
the total email length limit would come
into play, which is usually pretty large (measured in MB)

Stephan

>> Are there practical length limits with respect to current SMTP clients
>> and servers?
>
> Given that there are clients which don't show users the display-name at all, I
> suppose the practical length limit could be seen as zero. Those clients that do
> display this information often allocated a fairly narrow field to it, so I
> wouldn't count on anything more than 30-40 characters (not octets) being
> visible.
>
>                                Ned
>

--

-- 
Stephan Wehner

-> http://stephan.sugarmotor.org (blog and homepage)
-> http://loggingit.com
-> http://www.thrackle.org
-> http://www.buckmaster.ca
-> http://www.trafficlife.com
-> http://stephansmap.org -- http://blog.stephansmap.org
-> http://twitter.com/stephanwehner /  <at> stephanwehner

ned+ietf-822 | 20 Sep 21:44 2010

Re: Length Limit for display-name


> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed <at> mrochek.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Section 3.4. Address Specification of RFC2822 specifies
> >
> >> name-addr       =       [display-name] angle-addr
> >
> >> What are the length limits on the display-name field? I take it a long
> >> display-name
> >> value would simply be folded as described under 2.2.3. Long Header Fields
> >
> > AFAICT the relevant specifications impose no limits on the size of the
> > display-name. What implementations actually do is another matter, of course. I
> > believe I've encountered limits as low as 64 octets. I certainly wouldn't
> > recommend putting in stuff longer than 100 or so octets and  expect it to pass
> > through everything intact.
> >

> Thanks a lot for your replies, Ned and Hector!

> Indeed, I tracked down the display-name rule in

>  display-name    =       phrase
>  phrase          =       1*word / obs-phrase

> where 1*word implies no length limit (RFC 2234)

> When I asked about clients, I meant clients that connect to the mail
> server to send an email message, not end-user
> or display clients.

THat excludes the thnings that impose by far the shortest limits on these
fields.

> For example, qmail-remote, and gateways when
> passing a message to another server. Here
> I thought the To: header being within the message they would not touch
> it, or parse it and just pass it on, so
> that "trace fields are prepended to the message" (A.4 in the Appendix )

Dream on. That's not how things work in th real world. Lots of intermediaries
perform all sorts of processing of header fields. The legality or illegality of
doing this is mostly irrelevant, since you have to deal with what's out there,
not what the standards-writers hoped would be out there, but even then,
specific header modifications are specifically condoned by vaiorus standards,
e.g., MIME downgrading.

In the specific case of To: fields, an obvious one is for submission servers to
rewrite addresses to eliminae short form names and other local crap.

> Would such clients leave a display-name unchanged?

The answer is no, you cannot count on it.

> I would think only
> the total email length limit would come
> into play, which is usually pretty large (measured in MB)

Again, you're dreaming if you think this is true.

				Ned

Murray S. Kucherawy | 22 Sep 07:52 2010

multipart/report

I’m doing some work with the OMA in the area of spam reporting.  They have developed an XML message format for reporting spam from a mobile handset.  Because SMS and MMS (and even IM) have different structure than email, they went with something more extensible than what we currently do with DSNs.  I’m helping that group try to converge with what we do in the email world, especially with what the MARF working group is producing (e.g., ARF, specified by recently-published RFC5965).  The first thing is to register the MIME type they’ve created, and so I’ve crafted a template for that.

 

The next thing we’d like to achieve is to be able to specify multiple spam reports in a single message, regardless of transport (they currently use HTTP POST, but there’s no reason SMTP couldn’t be used).  The most obvious thing to do would be to use a multipart/mixed MIME message, and then include their MIME type in each of “n” parts.  However, this is different than what was done with ARF, which used multipart/report.  The advantage to using multipart/report, which stipulates that it must be the outermost MIME type, is that you know right away that you’re processing a report rather than having to parse part way into the MIME tree to figure that out.  (According to Tony Hansen, that’s why this rule was put in place.)  But although multipart/report is the most obvious construct for doing this, it doesn’t lend itself to multi-report messages.  So to get these to converge, we have to be a little creative or be very creative (in the “create a lot of documents” sense).

 

We could do a message/digest, each sub-part of which is message/rfc822 and the MIME type within that is multipart/report.  One could argue that this approach conforms to the multipart/report rules by having that be the outermost MIME part of each constituent message in the aggregate message, but that might be hard to defend given the spirit of that rule.

 

There’s also a stipulation that the MIME subtype of the second part in a multipart/report message must be equal to the report-type of the outermost part, with no other constraints.  Thus to keep multipart/report at the outermost MIME but allow multi-message reports, we could comply by using “multipart/report; report-type=mixed” as the outermost MIME type and then use “multipart/mixed” inside.  But this also sure feels hack-ish.

 

So what would be more palatable to this community?  Could multipart/report be updated to accommodate this use case?  Should we register multipart/multi-report that relaxes some of the existing restrictions without changing the existing media type?

 

Feedback/guidance is welcome.

 

-MSK

ned+ietf-822 | 22 Sep 08:34 2010

Re: multipart/report


> I'm doing some work with the OMA in the area of spam reporting.  They have
> developed an XML message format for reporting spam from a mobile handset. 
> Because SMS and MMS (and even IM) have different structure than email, they
> went with something more extensible than what we currently do with DSNs.  I'm
> helping that group try to converge with what we do in the email world,
> especially with what the MARF working group is producing (e.g., ARF, specified
> by recently-published RFC5965).  The first thing is to register the MIME type
> they've created, and so I've crafted a template for that.

> The next thing we'd like to achieve is to be able to specify multiple spam
> reports in a single message, regardless of transport (they currently use HTTP
> POST, but there's no reason SMTP couldn't be used).  The most obvious thing to
> do would be to use a multipart/mixed MIME message, and then include their MIME
> type in each of "n" parts.  However, this is different than what was done with
> ARF, which used multipart/report.  The advantage to using multipart/report,
> which stipulates that it must be the outermost MIME type, is that you know
> right away that you're processing a report rather than having to parse part way
> into the MIME tree to figure that out.

IMO this has always been a silly requirement because it imposes a condition
that in practice cannot possible be met. And as usual, it all boils down to
people having an idealized view of how email works and failing to take real
world conditions into account. (I did point this out at the time this was
written, but got no support and I was also the NOTARY chair, and as such my
main concern was getting the thing done, not worrying about this sort of
detail.)

While it is true that you can impose such a rule on agents sending out such
parts, you cannot possibly hope to have such a rule respected by intermediate
processors. So when, say, someone forwards a report they got to someone else
for analysis - guess what? The multipart/report ends up inside a message/rfc822
or whatever. Ditto for inclusion in multipart/digest objects.

As for the ease of processing business, you'd think that by now we'd have
learned not to do this sort of thing. The painful reality is that when it comes
to encouraging user agents to go the extra mile and do stuff like handle
reports properly, or handle alternatives properly, etc. etc., concessions to
simplicity have not helped in the slightest. User agent authors implement the
stuff they think is useful - even when it is difficult - and ignore the rest.
And for whatever reason support for processing multipart/report has not been
seen as useful, so there are very few implementations that do it. (I know of
only two, one of which I wrote and for which, BTW, the outermost part
rule didn't make things any simpler.)

> (According to Tony Hansen, that's why this rule was put in place.)

RFC 3462 specifically states that this is the case.

> But although multipart/report is the most obvious construct for doing this,
> it doesn't lend itself to multi-report messages. So to get these to converge,
> we have to be a little creative or be very creative (in the "create a lot of
> documents" sense).

> We could do a message/digest, each sub-part of which is message/rfc822 and
> the MIME type within that is multipart/report.  One could argue that this
> approach conforms to the multipart/report rules by having that be the outermost
> MIME part of each constituent message in the aggregate message, but that might
> be hard to defend given the spirit of that rule.

Won't fly. Again, RFC 3462 is quite specific about the purpose of the rule is
so reports can be detected by looking at the RFC 822 header. Such a purpose is
totally defeated by embedding the message inside additional MIME content.

No, if you want to get rid of this rule, you need to bite the bullet and
revise/update RFC 3462 to get rid of it. And I don't think this is that big of
a deal - this is very small beer compared to changing the no nested parts rule
in MIME, which EAI does.

> There's also a stipulation that the MIME subtype of the second part in a
> multipart/report message must be equal to the report-type of the outermost
> part, with no other constraints.  Thus to keep multipart/report at the
> outermost MIME but allow multi-message reports, we could comply by using
> "multipart/report; report-type=mixed" as the outermost MIME type and then use
> "multipart/mixed" inside.  But this also sure feels hack-ish.

I don't believe that works either, because in addition to the restriction you
note RFC 3462 requires that the content of a multipart/report be a specific
structure containing two or three parts with specific semantics. In fact I'd
say that relaxing this rule is likely to cause far more interop problems - for
example, my report processing code can handle reports not at the outermost
level, but would refuse to process what you're proposing here.

> So what would be more palatable to this community?  Could multipart/report be
> updated to accommodate this use case?  Should we register
> multipart/multi-report that relaxes some of the existing restrictions without
> changing the existing media type?

This would be the simplest thing to do that doesn't change anything else, but
I would prefer to get rid of the silly rule in RFC 3462.

				Ned

Alex Bobotek | 22 Sep 10:11 2010
Picon

RE: multipart/report

This issue was raised (without resolution or even near-consensus guidance) in the MARF WG at IETF78.  Here’s some reference material (1 and 2 below) and an additional question (3 below). 

 

1.        There is a document at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/marf-0.pdf describing this issue.  While it is no-longer up-to-date in that the SpamRep MIME structure has been changed to promote OMA/IETF convergence, it provides background.

2.       The current Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) SpamRep MIME structures are described in Section 5 of the draft SpamRep specification available at:  http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/COM/COM-SpamRep/Permanent_documents/OMA-TS-SpamRep-V1_0-20100913-D.zip .  The two most important structures are the single report “Simple SpamRep Message” and the multi-report “Complex SpamRep Message,” illustrated below.

SpamRep Document (XML, application/vnd.oma.spamrep+xml)

 

or                                                …

 

[Optional:  Spam Content]

 

Human Readable text (e.g., “OMA Spam Report:  Spam received by +12062187967”)

 

 

 

multipart/mixed

 

 

 

 

 

 

        …

 

 

Human Readable text (e.g., “This is a collection of OMA Spam Reports”)

 
             

 

 

3.        An issue not raised in Murry’s message is whether and how to promote spam reports that are readable by both RFC5965 and SpamRep servers.  One possibility is to allow the second part of the multipart/report to be a multipart/alternative MIME part.  This multipart/alternative might contain two or more MIME parts, including both OMA-defined application/vnd.oma.spamrep+xml and RFC5965-defined message/feedback-report MIME parts.  To comply with the letter (yet perhaps not the spirit) of RFC3462, an outer(most) MIME type would need to be ‘multipart/report, report-type=alternative’.  What is the group’s reaction to this? 

 

 

Regards,

 

Alex Bobotek

 

From: owner-ietf-822 <at> mail.imc.org [mailto:owner-ietf-822 <at> mail.imc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:53 PM
To: ietf-822 <at> imc.org
Subject: multipart/report

 

I’m doing some work with the OMA in the area of spam reporting.  They have developed an XML message format for reporting spam from a mobile handset.  Because SMS and MMS (and even IM) have different structure than email, they went with something more extensible than what we currently do with DSNs.  I’m helping that group try to converge with what we do in the email world, especially with what the MARF working group is producing (e.g., ARF, specified by recently-published RFC5965).  The first thing is to register the MIME type they’ve created, and so I’ve crafted a template for that.

 

The next thing we’d like to achieve is to be able to specify multiple spam reports in a single message, regardless of transport (they currently use HTTP POST, but there’s no reason SMTP couldn’t be used).  The most obvious thing to do would be to use a multipart/mixed MIME message, and then include their MIME type in each of “n” parts.  However, this is different than what was done with ARF, which used multipart/report.  The advantage to using multipart/report, which stipulates that it must be the outermost MIME type, is that you know right away that you’re processing a report rather than having to parse part way into the MIME tree to figure that out.  (According to Tony Hansen, that’s why this rule was put in place.)  But although multipart/report is the most obvious construct for doing this, it doesn’t lend itself to multi-report messages.  So to get these to converge, we have to be a little creative or be very creative (in the “create a lot of documents” sense).

 

We could do a message/digest, each sub-part of which is message/rfc822 and the MIME type within that is multipart/report.  One could argue that this approach conforms to the multipart/report rules by having that be the outermost MIME part of each constituent message in the aggregate message, but that might be hard to defend given the spirit of that rule.

 

There’s also a stipulation that the MIME subtype of the second part in a multipart/report message must be equal to the report-type of the outermost part, with no other constraints.  Thus to keep multipart/report at the outermost MIME but allow multi-message reports, we could comply by using “multipart/report; report-type=mixed” as the outermost MIME type and then use “multipart/mixed” inside.  But this also sure feels hack-ish.

 

So what would be more palatable to this community?  Could multipart/report be updated to accommodate this use case?  Should we register multipart/multi-report that relaxes some of the existing restrictions without changing the existing media type?

 

Feedback/guidance is welcome.

 

-MSK

Stephan Wehner | 24 Sep 00:32 2010
Picon

Re: Length Limit for display-name


On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Ned Freed <ned.freed <at> mrochek.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, qmail-remote, and gateways when
>> passing a message to another server. Here
>> I thought the To: header being within the message they would not touch
>> it, or parse it and just pass it on, so
>> that "trace fields are prepended to the message" (A.4 in the Appendix )

> Dream on. That's not how things work in th real world. Lots of intermediaries
> perform all sorts of processing of header fields. The legality or illegality of
> doing this is mostly irrelevant, since you have to deal with what's out there,
> not what the standards-writers hoped would be out there, but even then,
> specific header modifications are specifically condoned by vaiorus standards,
> e.g., MIME downgrading.

> In the specific case of To: fields, an obvious one is for submission servers to
> rewrite addresses to eliminae short form names and other local crap.
> The answer is no, you cannot count on it.
>
>> I would think only
>> the total email length limit would come
>> into play, which is usually pretty large (measured in MB)
>
> Again, you're dreaming if you think this is true.

Alright, let's look at an alternative to what I'm trying to do.

How is it with using Optional Fields (section 3.6.8). Are they safewith respect
to "intermediaries perform[ing] all sorts of processing of header fields"?

Stephan

>>                                Ned
>

--

-- 
Stephan Wehner

-> http://stephan.sugarmotor.org (blog and homepage)
-> http://loggingit.com
-> http://www.thrackle.org
-> http://www.buckmaster.ca
-> http://www.trafficlife.com
-> http://stephansmap.org -- http://blog.stephansmap.org
-> http://twitter.com/stephanwehner /  <at> stephanwehner


Gmane