SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email Addresses
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-13

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations text in utf8headers needs to include a
(normative) reference to RFC 4952.  In addition, the text should
explictly point out that many current email security mechanisms,
such as DKIM, S/MIME, and OpenPGP are specified for RFC 2822
compliant messages, and may not correctly work with messages that
have UTF-8 headers. (There is some text in RFC 4952 about this, but
since this is a pretty serious issue, repeating it with 1-2 sentences
would IMHO be useful.)

[Ballot comment]
I think the ABNF could be improved and be made easier to verify. I know there are a lot of baggage in the ABNF usage in RFC 2821. However, I think the following improvements could be done:

1. putting in rulenames for the rules that didn't have name in RFC 2821, like for VRFY and MAILTO. Otherwise you are not really having correct ABNF.

2. Put in the equivalent of import clause for different rules. What I mean is that for a rule defined in another document, like "atext"

atext =

That way a reader know where it is comming. It will also not show up as undefined in parsing. Thus allowing one to easier verify the real undefines from the ones that are imported from other documents.

[Ballot comment]
draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers, Section 4.3., paragraph 21:
>    [NOTE IN DRAFT: If any header needs to be restricted to disallow
>    this, please raise the issue on the mailing list.]

  Remove note for publication as an RFC.


draft-ietf-eai-smtpext, INTRODUCTION, paragraph 10:
> Abstract

  Should briefly describe what it updates in RFCs 4952, 2821 and 2822.


draft-ietf-eai-smtpext, Section 3.7.3., paragraph 7:
>    [[anchor10: Note: The FOR parameter has been changed to match the
>    definition in RFC2821bis, permitting only one address in the For
>    clause.  The group working on that document reached mailing list
>    consensus that the syntax in RFC 2821 that permitted more than one
>    address was simply a mistake.]]

  Doesn't look like a note to the RFC Editor - remove?

[Ballot discuss]
draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers, Section 1.2., paragraph 1:
>    This document updates section 6.4 of RFC 2045.

  DISCUSS: Add this to the first-page header and abstract.


draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers, Section 1.2., paragraph 3:
>    This document also updates [RFC2822] and MIME

  DISCUSS: Ditto. And please provide an RFC number for "MIME".

Waiting for document shepherd to confirm all last call comments have
been addressed (either via document update or response to the person who
made the comment).

IANA Last Call comments:

IANA has questions.

Action 1:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "MAIL Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters
sub-registry "SMTP Service Extensions"

Keywords Description Reference
------------------- ---------------------------------- ---------
UTF8SMTP Email Address Internationalizatoin [RFC-eai-smtpext-11]


Action 2:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "SMTP Enhanced Status Codes" registry located
at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD
sub-registry "class sub-codes"

Either the IANA Considerations section or section 2.5 should be
expanded to be more clear about exactly what information needs to
be inserted into the registry.


Action 3:

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will make the following
assignments in the "MAIL Parameters" registry located at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/mail-parameters
sub-registry "Mail Transmission Types"
sub-registry "WITH protocol types"

WITH protocol Description Reference
types
--------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------
UTF8SMTP UTF8SMTP with Service [RFC-eai-smtpext-11]
Extensions
UTF8SMTPA UTF8SMTP with SMTP AUTH [RFC4954] [RFC-eai-smtpext-11]
UTF8SMTPS UTF8SMTP with STARTTLS [RFC3207] [RFC-eai-smtpext-11]
UTF8SMTPSA UTF8SMTP with both [RFC3207] [RFC4954]
STARTTLS and SMTP AUTH [RFC-eai-smtpext-11]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this
document.

AD review of draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11.txt

NOTE: Unresolved normative reference to [SMTP-codes] will result in this document getting stuck waiting at some point in the process (most likely
the RFC editor queue, although the IESG could decide to block earlier).

Otherwise this document is of unusually high quality, I have no issues
with the current content.


AD review of draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt

One minor technical issue, treat as ordinary last call comment and fix
(after last call) if you agree:

Section 4.3

>  set of protocol elements; for instance, all the allowed values for
>  timezone in the Date: headers are still expressed in ASCII.  And

This is not a good example because the only allowed generate syntax for
timezone in RFC 2822 is a numeric offset.  I suggest using month-name as
an example instead.


I started writing a few editorial nits, then realized this needed more
extensive editorial work.  I decided to instead expect the RFC editor to
fix these issues and I plan to include the following in the document
ballot:

Note to RFC Editor

    The document draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-09.txt has a number of
    grammar issues and may require extensive editorial work, please
    plan accordingly.

Writeup for the documents:

draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-11
draft-ietf-eai-utf8heders-09

destined for Experimental status.

(the writeup for the linked draft-ietf-eai-dsn-05 is sent separately)


  (1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the
          Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
          document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
          version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

  Harald Alvestrand. Yes.

  (1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
          and from key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have
          any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
          have been performed?

  Yes. No.

  (1.c)  Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
          needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
          e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
          AAA, internationalization or XML?

  No.

  (1.d)  Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
          issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
          and/or the IESG should be aware of?  For example, perhaps he
          or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
          has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any
          event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
          that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
          concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
          been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
          disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
          this issue.

  No.

  (1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it
          represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
          others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
          agree with it?

  I believe the WG as a whole understands and agrees that the
  documents are a solid description of the chosen approach.
  See below for the "possible conflict".

  (1.f)  Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
          discontent?  If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
          separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director.  (It
          should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
          entered into the ID Tracker.)

  Charles Lindsey and Frank Ellermann have argued strongly
  against a specific point in the specification: The
  transmission of EAI messages in a subtype of
  "message". Charles has indicated that he will re-raise this
  issue at Last Call time.

  (1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
          document satisfies all ID nits?  (See
          http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
          http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/).  Boilerplate checks are
          not enough; this check needs to be thorough.  Has the document
          met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
          Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

  Yes.
  MIME type review was asked for on January 21, 2008; one positive
  comment has been recieved as of February 22.

  (1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and
          informative?  Are there normative references to documents that
          are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
          state?  If such normative references exist, what is the
          strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references
          that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If
          so, list these downward references to support the Area
          Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

  Yes.
  SMTP:
  There are normative references to -dsn and -utf8hdr, which
  are part of this package, as well as mailesc-registry, which
  should go forward ahead of it.
  UTF8:
  There are normative references to -smtpext, which is part of
          this package.

  (1.i)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
          consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
          of the document?  If the document specifies protocol
          extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
          registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
          the document creates a new registry, does it define the
          proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
          procedure for future registrations?  Does it suggest a
          reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
          document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
          conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
          can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

  Yes. No new registries, -SMTP has some new values to register.

  (1.j)  Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
          document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
          code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
          an automated checker?

  Yes. One minor ABNF error has been identified, and will be
          corrected with other Last Call comments.

  (1.k)  The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
          Announcement Write-Up.  Please provide such a Document
          Announcement Write-Up?  Recent examples can be found in the
          "Action" announcements for approved documents.  The approval
          announcement contains the following sections:

          Technical Summary
    These two documents form the core specification for an
    extension to SMTP and RFC 2822 that allow the free use of
    UTF-8 in message headers without encoding.

    This includes the use of non-ASCII characters in email
    addresses, both on the left and right hand sides of the
    @ character.

          Working Group Summary
    The WG was chartered to explore one particular approach
    to email internationalization, and succeeded in keeping
    to that charter.
    There was extensive discussion of one particular design
    choice - on which MIME type to use.

          Document Quality
            The documents have been extensively reviewed by people
            with mail expertise. There have been reports of
            implementations, but no interoperability tests have been
            reported to date.