Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with SMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA03460; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:40:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (bulk_mailer v1.12); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:38:49 -0500 Received: by CS.UTK.EDU (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA03172; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:38:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (marvin@localhost) by CS.UTK.EDU with ESMTP (cf v2.9s-UTK) id LAA03156; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:38:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from joy.songbird.com (208.184.79.7 -> joy.songbird.com) by CS.UTK.EDU (smtpshim v1.0); Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:38:46 -0500 Received: from free.88.109.bayarea.net (free.88.109.bayarea.net [205.219.88.109]) by joy.songbird.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA01911; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:37:24 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: joy.songbird.com: free.88.109.bayarea.net [205.219.88.109] didn't use HELO protocol Message-Id: <4.3.0.20000316082531.00bff760@mail.bayarea.net> X-Sender: dcrocker@mail.bayarea.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:36:05 -0800 To: Dan Oscarsson From: Dave Crocker Subject: Re: Is it good to publish a new RFC on SMTP without internationalisation? Cc: klensin@jck.com, drums@cs.utk.edu In-Reply-To: <200003161130.MAA20735@valinor.malmo.trab.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed List-Unsubscribe: At 12:30 PM 3/16/00 +0100, Dan Oscarsson wrote: >I think you, Matti Aarnio and Perry Metzger all think that I want to >start using UTF-8 without any compatibility to the current >ASCII only world. I do not! Dan, There are two lines of thinking in response to your note. I fear you have noticed only one of them. The one that has dominated this thread pertains to the details of an approach to adding internationalization. The most significant point about the responses to your suggestion, in that regard, is that a number of experienced email protocol designers (and implementors) believe your approach won't work. That makes for a nice, healthy debate, out of which might come a solid proposal. As noted, DRUMS is not the proper venue for that debate but, yes, it would be a good one to pursue, somewhere. The point that has been missed was Klensin's main point, concerning process: Whatever conventions are pursued for internationalization in email, they won't happen quickly. John used "months" as an optimistic choice for developing the specification. As he and the other respondents well know -- and as the content of the various respondents should make clear by demonstration -- MANY months is more likely. And then there is deployment. For global standardization, nothing is ever simple or quick. Hence, it really is not feasible to "slip a change in" at a late stage like this. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA