Subject: [yam] Status: draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:21:40 -0700

Hello,

There is currently a WGLC for 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation [1].  There has only 
been one comment [2] up to now (thanks Dave).

Please avoid open-ended discussions unless they are relevant to the 
WG work as defined in the YAM WG Charter [3].

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00472.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00475.html
3. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/yam/charters

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:38:00 +0200

On 15/Jun/10 17:21, S Moonesamy wrote:
> draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation.

RFC 5322 mentions MIME extensions a few times, e.g. in section 2.1:

   Note: This document specifies that messages are made up of
   characters in the US-ASCII range of 1 through 127.  There are
   other documents, specifically the MIME document series ([RFC2045],
   [RFC2046], [RFC2047], [RFC2049], [RFC4288], [RFC4289]), that
   extend this specification to allow for values outside of that
   range.  Discussion of those mechanisms is not within the scope of
   this specification.

I'm not a MIME expert, but I thought that MIME had been designed to be 
transparent to old software.  Although it seems correct to mention 
MIME, as it provides further structure, the specs that actually break 
US-ASCII are RFC 1652 and possibly RFC 5336.  What am I missing?

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:57:37 -0700 (PDT)

> RFC 5322 mentions MIME extensions a few times, e.g. in section 2.1:

That's incorrect. Although the specifications allow for it, there's no such
thing as a "MIME extension" presently. What you're referring to is the fact
that MIME extends the basic message format. A very different thing.

> transparent to old software.

Also incorrect. MIME can be used in a variety of ways. One of those ways -
where all 8bit and binary material is encoded - is backwards compatible with
old software. Other ways - where either 8bit or binary material is allowed, are
not.

This was all part of MIME from the very beginning.

> Although it seems correct to mention
> US-ASCII are RFC 1652 and possibly RFC 5336.

Nope. RFC 1652 (or more properly, the 1652bis draft) provides a means of
transporting 8bit MIME over SMTP. But it refers back to RFCs 2045 and 2046 for
the specification of 8bit content. It in no way, shape or form extends the
message format itself; it only provides the means for transporting that
extended format.

Setups exist that use RFC 5322 format messages extended by MIME to 8bit or even
binary and which don't use SMTP at all.

As for RFC 5336, while it does extend the formt of RFC 5322 messages very
substantially, it's an experimental RFC. Not informational or standards track.
Moreoever, the current plan is to replace it with a document specifying a
considerably different appraoch, at which point it will move to historic.

It would therefore be totally inappropriate to reference it, or any of the
other current EAI documents, in a standards track RFC. That will probably
change once EAI produces a new set of standards track documents, but we'll
deal with that issue once it arises, not before.

> What am I missing?

Basically you're confusing format and transport specifications. They  are in no
way the same thing.

				Ned

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:57:46 +0200

Thanks Ned, your comments are always sharp and precise.

On 17/Jun/10 18:57, Ned Freed wrote:
> old software. Other ways - where either 8bit or binary material is
> allowed, are not.
>
> Moreover, the current plan is to replace it with a document specifying a
> considerably different approach, at which point it will move to historic.
>
> _______________________________________________
> yam mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:53:57 -0700

Hello,

There has been three comments on 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation from Dave Crocker 
[1], Alessandro Vesely [2] and Ned Freed [3].

The Working Last Call for 
draft-ietf-yam-rfc5322bis-msgfmt-pre-evaluation ends on June 25.  If 
you have any comments, please post them to the mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
YAM WG Secretary

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00475.html
2. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00500.html
3. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam/current/msg00501.html