[09:49:09] --- Eric Allman has joined [09:50:11] --- sm has joined [10:00:56] --- yone has joined [10:05:06] --- Chris Newman has joined [10:05:38] --- fujiwara has joined [10:08:39] --- Randall Gellens has joined [10:09:29] --- healthyao has joined [10:11:10] --- Barry Leiba has joined [10:11:22] Eric -- are you remote? [10:11:31] Are you listening to the audio stream? [10:11:34] --- Jaeyoun Kim has joined [10:12:07] yes and yes [10:12:07] --- swshin92 has joined [10:13:03] --- matt wall has joined [10:13:54] chris: those 3 core documents are in IESG last call. lisa sponsors for DSN; chris sponsors for smtpext and utf9hdr. [10:14:30] now downgrade [10:15:04] --- levigner has joined [10:15:48] harald: any issues should be addressed before downgrade document iesg last call or already ready for last call? [10:16:09] --- shinta has joined [10:16:41] harald: downgrade document is supposed to sent to iesg for last call [10:17:16] now pop document discussion [10:22:40] randy: the question is whethor the pop server should downgraded according to eai downgrade or rfc 2821 and 2822? [10:28:31] --- matt wall has left [10:35:19] --- Andrew Sullivan has joined [10:36:24] make pop draft to have a normative reference to dei-downgrade draft ? must , should, might? [10:36:42] this issue will go to the eai mailing list [10:38:58] now IRIs for mailto issues [10:39:58] ted: this mailto draft need more reviews [10:42:24] --- matt wall has joined [10:43:35] randy: current mailto draft troubled me. there are a couple of questions. [10:48:38] Mailto: Not enough people have read it. Percent-encoding is ugly. I point out that percent-encoding makes it non-human-readable. I also suggest that allowing comments and other mailbox weirdness is not needed and likely to cause interoperability problems. Further, the warning not to use utf8 mailto except in contexts where it is known that the client can generate EAI-compliant messages doesn't work since there is no way to know which client will interpret them. Harald asks if we should perhaps define a new URI scheme. Ted and Pete support this. [10:50:57] Several people note that web clients currently handle the current encoding (but not mail clients) [10:53:09] One syntactic option: mail8to:i18n@i18n?alt-address=ascii@ascii;header=hvalue;body=blah [10:54:12] Sorry, that should be:mail8to:i18n@i18n?alt-address=ascii@ascii&header=hvalue&body=blah [10:54:12] harad: whether to define a new URI scheme will go to mailing list discuusion [10:54:22] now mailing list discussion [10:57:12] harald: in mailing list draft, how to define mailto? URI or IRI? [11:06:25] randy: open issues for mailling draft: list-* headers ; especially [11:07:15] now eai scenarios document [11:09:54] publish it separately or form of eai framework document ; drop it; no options; [11:10:19] 4 options for scenarios document [11:13:25] most seems prefer secnario document as the part of eai framework document [11:13:37] rough consensus [11:16:16] now new draft to be considered for adoption [11:17:50] email client document and downgrade display document [11:21:55] Mailinglist: Ted suggests changing List-* text regarding IRIs to say "these are URIs; no work is currently underway to specify IRI versions; should such work be done, URI versions need to remain." Take to list question of downgrade document removing URIs that are encoded UTF8 (see last paragraph on page 6 of -03). Scenarios: Consensus to fold into framework, per John's suggestion. email-clients (draft-dainow-eai-email-clients-00): discussion of this new document. [11:22:47] harald: 2 questions about email client document: be a item of WG or discuss it more [11:24:57] John suggests we adopt but with very long date, and not intend to publish until after we have deployment experience [11:25:45] I suggest that we adopt now, and publish as Experimental as they give advice that matches the current state of the smtpext and downgrade documents. We can then revise when we revise the others. [11:25:59] Seems to be rough consensus to adopt as WG documents. [11:26:24] most seems to prefer the client document as the item of WG [11:29:22] Some discussion as to if these are user interface documents or not [11:29:28] now organization of future work [11:34:06] --- swshin92 has left: Replaced by new connection [11:36:17] Future work: Period of experimentation following publication. Repeat calls for interoperability testing among implementations? When should we aim for starting the creation of standards-track documents? Harald suggests setting aside time in Dublin to get together and demonstrate our implementations. Asks about having standards-track documents ready at end of year. [11:36:24] Barry suggests mid-2009 [11:37:15] John Klensin, in a rare display of optimism, suggests we will need a few rounds of documents and we can start quickly [11:42:36] some suggests , we finish expriments and move to stand track at the end of 2008 [11:45:36] --- Chris Newman has left [11:45:56] --- Barry Leiba has left [11:46:08] --- sm has left [11:46:08] ciao [11:46:10] --- matt wall has left [11:46:14] --- Randall Gellens has left [11:46:15] --- shinta has left [11:46:19] --- Andrew Sullivan has left [11:46:25] --- levigner has left [11:46:25] --- fujiwara has left [11:47:45] --- healthyao has left [11:52:28] --- Eric Allman has left [12:03:56] --- yone has left [12:10:57] --- levigner has joined [12:22:26] --- levigner has left [12:51:57] --- healthyao has joined [12:53:05] --- healthyao has left [13:18:38] --- healthyao has joined [13:48:47] --- healthyao has left [14:23:19] --- Jaeyoun Kim has left