[00:40:21] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) joins the room [00:40:41] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) has set the subject to: EAI @ IETF 79 [00:41:10] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) leaves the room [00:41:23] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) joins the room [00:51:45] Randall Gellens joins the room [00:53:40] sm joins the room [00:55:30] Shawn Steele joins the room [00:57:04] I'm lost looking for the audio link? [00:58:42] yone joins the room [00:58:53] Chris Newman joins the room [00:59:29] Chris Newman leaves the room [01:00:48] cnewman joins the room [01:03:01] J.D. joins the room [01:03:57] http://nagasaki.bogus.com:8000/ietf793.mp3 is the direct URL to the stream [01:04:20] Thanks :) [01:04:27] bortzmeyer joins the room [01:04:52] swordzzzz joins the room [01:07:49] Is there any talking? If so the mp3 stream doesn't hear it :) (Just a lot of white noise) [01:08:04] No, the meeting did not start yet. [01:08:48] thx [01:08:55] it will start soon [01:09:52] john is speaking [01:10:09] the audio is distorted [01:10:20] sounds like analog distortion, not compression artifcats [01:10:40] stpeter joins the room [01:11:15] Sounds like too much gain :) [01:11:17] shinta joins the room [01:11:19] Hyong-Jong Paik joins the room [01:11:30] agenda bashing [01:11:50] http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/agenda/eai.txt [01:12:04] pete is speaking [01:12:57] now the smtp documents [01:13:40] SMTP-bis (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-04) [01:15:07] who plan to these docouments? [01:15:21] a few hands are raised [01:15:31] this time, no photo recorded [01:16:42] with the audio distortion, it is extremely difficult to hear any speakers [01:16:43] josphe, talking about the iana consideration of rfc5335bis [01:17:32] getting better [01:17:47] getting worse [01:18:02] Alireza Saleh joins the room [01:18:03] (I'll stop unless someone says there's been an attempt to improve the feed) [01:18:22] Alireza Saleh leaves the room [01:18:28] It is very hard to understand. [01:18:42] ywang830 joins the room [01:18:46] Which is last call? [01:19:30] I hear all 3 last call the 26th, which is fine. [01:19:37] aleez joins the room [01:19:51] tony.l.hansen joins the room [01:21:04] WHen John was louder there I couldn't understand a thing :) [01:21:20] +1 [01:21:27] Can John lower his voice? [01:21:38] What is John saying for dec 3rd? [01:21:55] Downgrade? [01:22:08] it'd help if there were an active scribe…then we'd have some chance of knowing what's going on [01:22:52] is there anyone in the room who can report this problem? [01:23:51] I've asked someone I know in the room, hope it helps [01:24:00] last call of the following 3 documents [01:24:01] 3.1 SMTP-bis (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-04) 3.2 Header-bis (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-03) 3.3 DSN-bis (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-01) [01:25:49] Martin J. Dürst joins the room [01:25:54] pop is ready , last call of POP3-bis (draft-ietf-eai-rfc5721bis-00) [01:26:40] sounds like somebody may have fixed it [01:27:34] the hotel staff will come to fix it [01:27:34] nope [01:27:42] thank you! [01:28:37] now it is the discussion Post-delivery Message Downgrading for Internationalized Email Messages (draft-ietf-eai-popimap-downgrade-00) [01:30:34] now is the group syntax discussion [01:30:41] sukmoonlee joins the room [01:31:25] Please use mikes! [01:31:59] Please use mikes! [01:32:28] can hear it? it uses mikes now [01:33:02] Yes, much better, thanks! [01:33:29] Much better thanks [01:34:04] RFC 2047 is a presentation conversion. A client that parses after 2047 is decoded is broken. [01:37:05] But lots of clients are broken with respect to 2047 [01:38:09] For downgrading, I'm not interested in doing any extra work to interoperate with clients that have already decided not to interoperate with standard email by implementing 2047 incorrectly. [01:40:54] channel to mic: Should Header-bis be changed to disallow use of EAI addresses in group syntax? [01:40:56] joseph.yee joins the room [01:41:18] securitity consideration Vs legacy consideration VS interoperatability issue VS user experiences [01:41:36] It''s not to much an interop issue as just a display issue -- what will old clients do when they get this stuff? [01:42:23] I'll channel Chris [01:46:32] there is only one proposal in fujiwara's slide for group syntax [01:46:38] hta joins the room [01:46:56] can someone remind me again why we're not saying "an EAI UA MUST NOT send group syntax"? [01:47:35] I also wonder why EAI shouldn't disallow group syntax? [01:47:44] resnick joins the room [01:47:57] We don't want to get rid of group syntax just to accommodate old clients [01:48:22] but why don't we want to get rid of group syntax? [01:48:52] It's useful and it's used. Why get rid of something that people use? [01:48:53] (we're being clever about using it as a weird form of comment in this stuff, but do we really have an use for it in new clients?) [01:48:58] People generally find empty group syntax useful. I'd support getting rid of non-empty group syntax for EAI to simplify the downgrading problem. [01:49:01] For the general answer: Group syntax with no embedded addresses is incredibly useful. [01:49:12] problem 2: rfc5322 does not allow group syntax in "from.", "resent-from:"....., but proposed method uses group syntax. [01:49:19] Randy, Pete: where is it useful? [01:49:36] solution to proposal 2 discussion [01:49:41] It's useful for conveying information to the end user [01:49:46] The Bcc case where you want to include something in the header. [01:50:02] It's also useful for creating a null address that has meaning [01:50:04] randy, pete: how many UAs display that information correctly today? [01:50:23] example -- undisclosed-recipient:; [01:50:24] I'm not aware of clients that fail to display group syntax [01:50:47] But then I don't use Outlook -- does it do OK? [01:51:21] Randy, can you send me a message with group syntax to hta@google.com and harald@alvestrand.no? I want to check (Thunderbird and gmail). [01:51:35] I agree with whoever just spoke. [01:51:52] It was me [01:51:55] barry is speaking [01:52:17] john is speaking [01:52:55] SUN Guonian joins the room [01:54:15] sean.s.shen joins the room [01:54:26] Harald: I just sent you a sample message. [01:55:07] Harald, I just sent you two messages; one with an empty group and one with a non-empty group [01:56:35] pete is speaking [01:59:01] Evil ugly syntax hack for from field: downgraded-address@[eai: =?q?blahbalh?=] [02:00:03] dave is speaking [02:00:54] bortzmeyer leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [02:00:54] bortzmeyer joins the room [02:02:28] bortzmeyer leaves the room: Replaced by new connection [02:02:29] bortzmeyer joins the room [02:02:38] pete is speaking [02:05:01] pete: concern that how the clients deal with the comments [02:05:30] SUN Guonian leaves the room [02:06:04] john is speaking [02:07:14] barry is speaking [02:08:36] josph is speaking [02:08:45] randy, both arrived with empty groups in Thunderbird, but were displayed correctly. Gmail displayed both To: fields as blanks. [02:09:31] Harald, what did t-bird show for the To field of the one with a non-empty group? [02:09:51] (in both cases, there was "view source" functionality that allowed me to inspect the headers - some place on the path is stripping out the group content.) [02:10:12] Let me send them again using a different server [02:11:13] Ok, sent using different server [02:14:13] I'm curious what happens to the groups/empty groups in OWA & Outlook, can you mail me too? :) shawn@terrax.org [02:15:29] Daoquan joins the room [02:16:31] Daoquan leaves the room [02:16:43] Shwn, sent two test (empty group and non-empty) [02:17:35] disussion: remove comma? [02:17:48] gmail still reports same result; the message is probably in my greylist for Thunderbird. [02:18:41] pete is raising some example [02:19:17] Daoquan joins the room [02:19:46] Daoquan leaves the room [02:20:46] pete: using secret address? [02:21:11] Daoquan joins the room [02:21:22] I got one test (empty)... It went to junk (so maybe non-empty was on the other side of junk and dropped silently?) Blank to: in Outlook, OWA just ignores the To: (eg: blank). [02:21:57] randy is speaking [02:24:26] pete: legacy client interact with eai imap server [02:25:55] barry is speaking [02:26:01] Channel: There is a way to construct a completely un-replyable address that's syntactically legal: do-not-reply@[utf8smtp:]. Could use that in combination with a comment or display-name that encodes the utf8smtp addr-spec syntax. [02:26:07] randy is speaking [02:28:30] *EVIL* (grin!) [02:28:31] Legacy clients display display names, so wouldn't they display correctly? Regardless of what was in the address? [02:29:22] So if you only cared about "display", then punycode@punycode with a decent display name? [02:29:55] If the same address was used for multiple display names (bad@example.com), then wouldn't clients think those were all the same person? [02:30:00] punycode@punycode has very limited chance of being displayed to the user decoded. [02:30:24] However, most clients will decode 2047-encoded stuff wherever it appears. [02:30:29] punycode@punycode doesn't need decoded, most clients show display names, not addresses anyway. [02:32:07] I'm still confused about group syntax. It would appear that it doesn't behave consistently on current email clients. So is it really necessary for EAI. [02:32:41] I mean, it seems that some people think it's nice, however it obviously isn't very portable, so is it really necessary for EAI? [02:33:25] Channel: If you hide 2047 in domain literal, then 2047 compliant clients will not display it, but incompliant clients probably will. I don't think it's a good idea to hide 2047 in the domain literal, however, because I don't like making life harder for compliant clients than incompliant ones. The only thing that does show 2047 is the display name and comments might show. Even group syntax display name isn't displayed by some clients as jabber tests have found. [02:35:24] I find it fascinating. I think I understand the concepts, but I have no idea about the details. [02:36:18] Daoquan leaves the room [02:36:25] sukmoonlee leaves the room [02:36:35] sukmoonlee joins the room [02:36:43] I think the detail is too detailed for me, however it does seem that the use of groups is so rare that either a) we don't really need it for EAI, or b) we don't really need to worry how ugly it is/specify a perfect fix. [02:37:19] dave is speaking [02:37:48] that's or b ) we don't really ..., my jabber at least turned it into a smiley. [02:39:02] stuff joins the room [02:41:21] shinta leaves the room [02:48:20] Lee Hyeong Woo joins the room [02:49:49] shinta joins the room [02:53:16] stpeter leaves the room: Disconnected: connection closed [02:56:03] We are back to group syntax all the way around. [02:56:27] andrades joins the room [02:57:02] andrades leaves the room [02:57:30] hand raised. [02:57:37] hand still raised. [02:57:39] pete will summarize the situation and send to group [03:00:03] Some spam filters throw out email that is syntacticly invalid. Group syntax in From is syntacticly invalid. [03:00:07] move to "another poposal from the list" [03:01:07] For the jabber room: 1. Originator fields get group syntax and we document that it is a syntax change. 2. Destination fields get group syntax, but nested groups get 2047-ed and made one big group. 3. We document that groups of int'l address are fragile when downgraded and therefore should likely not be sent. [03:01:17] now turn to the new item in the agenda [03:01:42] Fujiwara and I will talk and send the summary to the email list. [03:02:25] @resnick Have you seen the ymbk-ghostbusters doc? [03:02:33] It contains a profile of vcard [03:03:23] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-ghostbusters-01.txt [03:03:28] They might need your help [03:04:25] a few hands are raised for review of the other documents [03:05:50] Advice for EAI deployment draft and Advice for non-ASCII & ASCII addresses draft will submit after this meeting [03:07:15] Pete: Use of group syntax in From does concern me. I think experimentation would be helpful to determine: 1. there is enough 2047-incompliant software that decodes group 2047 syntax in From to make it a useful encoding. 2. It doesn't break compliant software in bad ways. I worry some clients will interpret: "From: foo bar :;" as "From: foo@local-domain, bar@local-domain", something that would be completely legal for a fully standards compliant client to do. [03:07:34] @Ted: It looks pretty minimal. Do you have a specific concern that they need help, or just a general concern? [03:09:09] now Discussion of i18n MAILTO plan [03:10:19] @Chris: The ":;" already makes the field bogus, so treating it as "foo@local, bar@local" seems dicey at best. But I think it's a legit concern and worth bringing up on the list. I'm just not convinced that any other form has less likelihood of causing legacy clients to do bogus things. [03:10:20] DQ joins the room [03:10:24] sm leaves the room [03:10:57] sm joins the room [03:11:46] @resnick I fear that they do not understand the string choices [03:11:51] DQ leaves the room [03:12:57] D.Q. joins the room [03:12:57] Martin, if you need to have something reflected, let us know [03:13:28] alexey is speaking [03:13:51] Randall Gellens leaves the room [03:13:59] D.Q. leaves the room [03:15:34] ted is speaking [03:17:14] Alexey suggest mailto-bis is necessary [03:21:08] Channel: My guess is that "imailto:" will turn out to look like "mailto:" (because of the constraints of the email and URI/IRI), and will have the same implementation problems. [12:15 pm] Whether I'd be willing to work on alternative scheme: I'd really have to think long and hard. [12:15 pm] I'm very glad to get more advice about email, from everybody involved. [12:16 pm] Also, adding another co-author would be fine, I guess. [12:17 pm] To John: It very clearly says %-encoding in LHS is RESERVED for future use. [12:17 pm] I agree that a new draft/RFC is fine. [12:18 pm] who is speaking? Ted Hardie? [12:20 pm] That every URI is an IRI and every IRI can be converted to an URI is defined in RFC 3987. [03:21:24] sorry, the above lines were in the wrong channel [03:21:28] Shawn Steele leaves the room [03:22:20] yes, the rest is also from me. [03:22:30] you can channel the rest, too [03:22:45] I will after this discussion. [03:23:04] pete: except the line that asks who was speaking [03:24:08] thanks, Pete! [03:24:12] np [03:24:50] meeting will adjourn soon [03:25:45] hta leaves the room [03:25:51] stuff leaves the room [03:26:06] Hyong-Jong Paik leaves the room [03:26:16] meeting adjourns [03:26:17] sm leaves the room [03:27:01] sean.s.shen leaves the room [03:27:30] hta joins the room [03:27:50] cnewman leaves the room [03:27:58] swordzzzz leaves the room [03:28:04] resnick leaves the room [03:28:11] hta leaves the room [03:28:17] bortzmeyer leaves the room [03:28:36] ywang830 leaves the room [03:28:49] Lee Hyeong Woo leaves the room [03:34:00] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [03:38:41] Daoquan joins the room [03:39:12] Daoquan is now known as D.Q. [03:39:16] D.Q. leaves the room [03:41:28] daoquan joins the room [03:41:43] daoquan leaves the room [03:42:54] sukmoonlee leaves the room [03:43:30] joseph.yee leaves the room [03:44:22] bortzmeyer joins the room [03:44:28] shinta leaves the room [03:45:51] yone leaves the room [03:57:52] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) leaves the room [03:58:07] ywang830 joins the room [04:04:03] tony.l.hansen joins the room [04:07:23] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) joins the room [04:07:41] Jacky Yao (Health Yao) leaves the room [04:10:12] aleez leaves the room [04:12:20] bortzmeyer leaves the room [04:25:33] Randall Gellens joins the room [04:31:54] ywang830 leaves the room [04:32:36] ywang830 joins the room [04:44:43] stpeter joins the room [04:47:49] ywang830 leaves the room [04:48:20] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [04:48:57] tony.l.hansen joins the room [04:53:51] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [04:59:24] tony.l.hansen joins the room [05:02:22] Randall Gellens leaves the room [05:02:35] ywang830 joins the room [05:03:20] hta joins the room [05:04:43] hta leaves the room [05:08:00] hta joins the room [05:10:45] Randall Gellens joins the room [05:10:58] Randall Gellens leaves the room [05:12:04] J.D. leaves the room [05:12:16] J.D. joins the room [05:13:51] stpeter leaves the room [05:43:59] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [05:44:39] tony.l.hansen joins the room [05:49:50] sukmoonlee joins the room [05:50:35] DYTwo joins the room [06:00:02] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [06:09:28] tony.l.hansen joins the room [06:11:25] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [06:13:27] tony.l.hansen joins the room [06:13:44] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [06:13:47] tony.l.hansen joins the room [06:13:56] J.D. leaves the room [06:14:10] J.D. joins the room [06:20:12] J.D. leaves the room [06:20:27] J.D. joins the room [06:25:40] ywang830 leaves the room [06:25:55] ywang830 joins the room [06:35:40] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [06:35:42] tony.l.hansen joins the room [06:44:37] hta leaves the room [06:44:44] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [06:58:02] sukmoonlee leaves the room [06:59:57] ywang830 leaves the room [07:04:12] ywang830 joins the room [07:05:48] ywang830 leaves the room [07:15:42] ywang830 joins the room [07:29:22] tony.l.hansen joins the room [08:00:55] DYTwo leaves the room [08:56:39] ywang830 leaves the room [09:32:16] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [10:22:31] Martin J. Dürst leaves the room [13:43:52] tony.l.hansen joins the room [15:08:11] tony.l.hansen leaves the room [17:59:17] J.D. leaves the room