RE: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

[bill]

I disagree with your analysis todd.

The strength of the IETF is not in the number of unique e-mail address
on its e-mail lists (define unique - I have subscribed from probably 10
e-mail addresses over the years - many people I know are subscribed with
multiple "unique" addresses - many address in reality point to archiving
services, other reflectors, peoples inboxes that don't look at the
e-mail

So I don't think you can even count the number of unique e-mail
addresses - but if you could -

Peoples technical content/quality very widely, some input is worthless
(or close to it) and many just monitor what is going on... Other e-mail
is critical - either in technical content, providing an alternative
viewpoint etc.

The strength of the IETF is that it is a gathering point for all of
these people.  Not a quantity of e-mail addresses that can be spammed or
something else

Bill

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of todd
glassey
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 5:09 PM
To: Bruce Campbell
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; Christian Huitema; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers


Bruce -
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christian
Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers


> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then

> > is
the
> > sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what

> > is
the
> > total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to

> > the Party as an enterprise/org???
>
> Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers that

> are on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?

participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but
this pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the IETF,
that being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember that the
IETF is a voluntary particpation standards process and platform, and
that the reliable email addresses for this "Vetting Pool" is what the
core of the IETF's ideas are vetted against. So put on your
"organizational leader's" hat and then ask me the same question -

> There
> seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various IETF-related 
> lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF discussions.

But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to
whether to participate of not.

>
> ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in
the
>   IETF )

I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are
there in the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that
make up the total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 1 - 5? what is
it? Harald? - this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the IETF
would not only be proud of, but would also have on the top of your head
on a monthly basis... Any ideas as to the number?

Todd


>
> --==--
> Bruce.

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Dave Crocker]

John,

JCK> If one is going to consider internationalization of email
JCK> addresses in a way that permits them to move through the mail
JCK> protocol in some traditional Unicode encoding  (e.g., UTF-8),
JCK> then

...then we get to repeat the mime/esmtp debates all over again.  After all,
why should we even try to learn anything from 10 years of experience.  (And
no, John, I'm not directing my comment at you.)

To be specific: I am not suggesting that pure utf-8 is a bad goal -- although
the fact that utf-8 is, itself, a condensed representation of unicode should
strike folks as a just a tad ironic, with respect to these discussions.

Rather, I suggest that it be a _separate_ goal from near-term support of an
edge-only enhancement for Unicode support, the same as we did for mime and
IDN.

We already have that support for domain names. That only leaves local-part.

It's fine to pursue a separate path for long-term 8-bit purity.  I'm sure we
will achieve it much sooner for addresses than we have for content.


JCK> Again, the goal is that this should be natural for the user,
JCK> using the user's script (or the script of the recipient), both
JCK> in protocol transactions and in the case of "My email address is
JCK> [EMAIL PROTECTED]"

The business card representation of an email address is the classic example of
IETF work that very much _does_ directly involve the user interface.  However
we already dealt with this issue for non-ascii domain names.  We do not need
to rehash this issue yet again.

As for the protocol, I could have sworn that users do not type protocol data
units directly, or at least that they haven't for roughly 25 years.  (Another
jibe, citing the fact that utf-8 is, itself, a modification to "raw" unicode
is probably worth repeating, here.)



JCK> in the body of a message... where the only parts of that
JCK> sentence (appropriately translated) which are a ASCII characters
JCK> are the @-sign and _maybe_ the TLD (whether the TLD can be
JCK> non-ASCII is presumably an ICANN problem unless the user
JCK> interface does something akin to draft-klensin-idn-tld-01.txt).

Indeed, representation of non-ascii addressing information within a text
segment is an interesting problem.  I'd guess it's identical to the business
card requirement.

And the current issue is no different than we have for IDN.

So perhaps the right thing to do is forget about IDN.  Pretend it never
happen.  Let's start all over.

Or, perhaps we could complete the design approach started by IDN, while
_separately_ pursuing the purist approach of end-to-end 8-bit.


JCK> So please don't prejudge the question of what happens to the
JCK> domain part (right hand side) of an email address in the
JCK> charter: this set of issues should at lease be considered very
JCK> carefully.

Indeed it should, including tidbits like adoption barriers, and the last
several years of IDN work.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker 
 Brandenburg InternetWorking 
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA 

Location of the IMAA list (was: RE: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA))

[Paul Hoffman / IMC]

At 11:54 AM -0500 10/28/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The BOF description lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
discussion list, but this discussion is being
cc:ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I'd suggest that you
move this discussion to whichever of those lists
is actually correct.
It is [EMAIL PROTECTED], although because Patrik sent out the wrong 
address, I have made sure that both addresses work. An archive of the 
list, and links to the current versions of the drafts, can be found 
at .

No more messages to all lists: that's what the IMAA list is for.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[John C Klensin]

--On Monday, October 27, 2003 11:10 -0800 Mark Crispin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> 
>  >> Thanks for taking a stab at a problem statement.  I'd like
> to drill down  >> on this just a bit.
>  >> What is the source of the "growing need"?  Is it:
>  >> [snip]
> 
> 
> I agree that this needs to be stated, but someone other than
> me will have to do it.
> 
> I believe that the primary push for this functionality comes
> from regions which use Latin alphabetics with diacriticals;
> and that most individuals in regions which do not use Latin
> script are accept the use of Latin script for multinational
> interchange.  In many regions where Latin diacriticals are
> used, there is no acceptable transform of a surname to a form
> that does not use diacriticals.  Simply omitting the
> diacritical causes (at least to the inhabitants of those
> regions) a misspelling.
>...

Actually, unlike the original push for internationalization of
email message bodies, and some of the push for IDNs, most of the
push I'm seeing for this are coming from folks with distinctly
non-Latin (i.e., not Cyrillic or Greek either) scripts... e.g.,
east Asia, middle east, etc.

I can't speak for the motivations of the others who have thought
and written about the problem.

So these are real "different characters" issues, not the
complexities of dealing with diacriticals on Latin letters and
what their omission might mean.

 john

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[John C Klensin]

Dave,

(distro trimmed to IMAA and IETF lists; I hope we can soon get
rid of the latter too).

One large problem with the charter draft (I'm too tired to know
if there are small ones)...

If one is going to consider internationalization of email
addresses in a way that permits them to move through the mail
protocol in some traditional Unicode encoding  (e.g., UTF-8),
then I believe that we at least need to entertain the notion
that what we are going after is "mailbox", rather than "local
part".  Yes, the hard work lies in the local part.  But, to me,
the goal is to have an I18N presentation form that is also
carried over the protocol.   

That implies that one should be able to have
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(UTF-8 on both sides or, if you prefer, throughout the string
(since the coding of "@" in UTF-8 is the same as it is in ASCII) 

rather than, e.g.,
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(UTF-8 on the LHS, but punycode for any domain labels that use
non-ASCII).

Again, the goal is that this should be natural for the user,
using the user's script (or the script of the recipient), both
in protocol transactions and in the case of "My email address is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the body of a message... where the only parts of that
sentence (appropriately translated) which are a ASCII characters
are the @-sign and _maybe_ the TLD (whether the TLD can be
non-ASCII is presumably an ICANN problem unless the user
interface does something akin to draft-klensin-idn-tld-01.txt). 

If the email address the user sees _looks_ like local script in
the local part, but is forced into ASCII/punycode in the domain
part, I think the users will assume that we have been smoking
something.  And, arguably, they will be right --punycode is a
way of transporting internationalized data so it doesn't foul up
other systems or cause DNS damage.  But, from the user
standpoint, however much users hate, e.g., a string representing
a name transliterated into Roman characters, they will hate
looking at punycode-- which has no mnemonic value at all for
non-Roman scripts-- even more.

So please don't prejudge the question of what happens to the
domain part (right hand side) of an email address in the
charter: this set of issues should at lease be considered very
carefully.

  john



--On Monday, October 27, 2003 16:19 -0800 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> On the theory that discussions go better when they have a
> concrete deliverable, here is a proposed charter for a
> proposed working group.
> 
> The following started with Mark Crispin's text, although it
> might not look it. Besides the usual goals for a charter, the
> following text attempts to specify the problem domain in the
> narrowest feasible form that is valid. If anyone thinks the
> scope is too narrow, they need to explain why.
> 
> 
> 
> DRAFT CHARTER
> 
> Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)
> -
> 
> The  portion of RFC2822 and  portion
> of RFC2821 mail addresses are restricted to a subset of ASCII.
> This poses a fundamental barrier for users needing mail
> addresses to be expressed in a richer set of characters, such
> as Latin characters with diacriticals and the many Asian
> characters. The goal of the current work is to add local-part
> support for these additional characters, while preserving the
> large, installed base of ASCII usage.
> 
> The group will take:
> 
>draft-hoffman-imaa-03.txt
>draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-01.txt
>draft-duerst-iri-04.txt
> 
> as input to discussions.
> 
> The group will pay particular attention to barriers to
> adoption and utility, as well as any impact the new scheme
> might have on the existing base of Internet mail usage.
> 
> 
> Milestones
> --
> 
> Nov, 03:  BOF
> 
> Dec, 03:  WG chartered
> 
> Feb, 03:  Initial draft of working group specifications.
> 
> Jun, 03:  Specifications submitted for IETF approval
> 
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker 
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking 
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA 
> 
> 
>  

Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

[todd glassey]

Bruce -
- Original Message - 
From: "Bruce Campbell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Christian Huitema"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers


> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then is
the
> > sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what is
the
> > total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to the
> > Party as an enterprise/org???
>
> Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers that are
> on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?

participants as far as meetings are concerned? no - obviously not, but this
pool of good email addresses constitute the core value of the IETF, that
being its Vettig Pool. So yes indeed, and also remember that the IETF is a
voluntary particpation standards process and platform, and that the reliable
email addresses for this "Vetting Pool" is what the core of the IETF's ideas
are vetted against. So put on your "organizational leader's" hat and then
ask me the same question -

> There
> seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various IETF-related
> lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF discussions.

But the point is that they have the option. Its their choice as to whether
to participate of not.

>
> ( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in the
>   IETF )

I agree - so lets ask the question again, how many unique names are there in
the lists - what's the total 'verified email addresses' that make up the
total of the vetting pool? - 5000 - 1 - 5? what is it? Harald? -
this seems like a number that you as the Chair of the IETF would not only be
proud of, but would also have on the top of your head on a monthly basis...
Any ideas as to the number?

Todd


>
> --==--
> Bruce.

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 17:39:32 PST, Mark Davis said:

> email addresses. Mr. Tanaka can have one with Latin letters and one with
> Japanese (e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED]).

This gets interesting in the context of a "reply all".

Apologies for breaking the UTF-8 in the quote, but it's illustrative - if the
breakage had been in the To/Cc lines, things would have broken even worse
unless whatever scheme we end up using is ASCII-transparent.


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:12 -0500 Marc Blanchet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> it appears to me that this thread is not very different from
> the idn considerations on usage of idn in the world. So what
> is really new in this discussion?

See the draft.

Quick answer: DNS interfaces really exist at the protocol level,
and a large part of the hypothesis behind IDNA was that it would
be possible, after we had enough implementations, to prevent an
end-user from ever seeing an encoded domain name.  That story
just doesn't hold for a special encoding-based (aka MUA-only)
email local part implementation, and maybe not for email
generally.  For example, under current rules, an MTA is required
to stuff the name it actually sees in HELO/EHLO and the MAIL
command into various headers.  If it is expected to notice that
they have special encodings and decodes them, we've gone rather
far into "the infrastructure is involved", even if the actual
on-the-wire transport is not impacted.  If it doesn't do that,
the encodings --both the IDNA domain parts and the special mail
encoding-- are going to be in the user's face, in the most
literal sense of that term.  

The similarity of that situation to the early IDN discussions is
the importance of the "what problem are you solving" question.
And it is very clear to me that, for email addresses, the answer
has got to "user sees their own characters in their email
addresses and the email addresses of those whose languages they
speak/ recognize.  Users typically don't actually see envelopes.
But seeing, e.g., different forms/codings of an address in the
header "From:" field than appears in "Return-path:" or than
appears in a signature line in the message body, is going to
create real unhappiness.  Similarly as has been pointed out in
another context, seeing an address in different from when it
appears in a header than when it (and that header) are
encapsulated in a message/?? body part is just not going to
amuse any user to whom we've said "ok, now you have i18n
strings, enjoy your new found local language capabilities".  And
I guess that tells you what I think the problem is that we need
to solve.  YMMD.

 john
 

RE: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Margaret . Wasserman]

Excuse me, but could you please constrain this
conversation to fewer than 9 (nine!) e-mail lists?

The BOF description lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the
discussion list, but this discussion is being
cc:ed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I'd suggest that you
move this discussion to whichever of those lists
is actually correct.

Margaret

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Marc Blanchet]

it appears to me that this thread is not very different from the idn
considerations on usage of idn in the world. So what is really new in this
discussion?

Marc.

-- Tuesday, October 28, 2003 07:10:59 -0800 Mark Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/a ecrit:

>> > (I agree that it's currently nearly impossible to use computers if one
>> > isn't familiar with the Latin script, of course.)
>> 
>> Which probably makes the rest of this discussion academic, unless we're
>> going to undertake solving *that* problem for Microsoft and the various
>> UNIX/Linux vendors...
> 
> It is currently impossible to use the Internet without knowing the Latin
> script. However, the goal of most well-designed client software and
> operating systems is to permit the user to work entirely within their
> native language, with a fully localized system. This is reaching to India
> and other countries; Microsoft has introduced fully localized versions of
> Indic Windows just recently, and Linux vendors are hard at work to
> produce fully localized versions of their software.
> 
> Email and Web addresses are the big remaining holdouts for most people.
> People should not be forced to use a script that they are unfamiliar
> with, just to use email addresses and sites in their own countries. Even
> if they are familiar with the Latin script, it is very often a very bad
> match for their languages, making it very difficult to figure out how
> native words would be spelled in it.
> 
> Mark
> 



--
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
--
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
--

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Zefram]

Mark Crispin wrote:
>   In many regions where Latin
>diacriticals are used, there is no acceptable transform of a surname to a
>form that does not use diacriticals.  Simply omitting the diacritical
>causes (at least to the inhabitants of those regions) a misspelling.

Ah, this one's easy.  Local parts aren't limited to Latin letters,
they can use all the ASCII printables.  Diacriticals are available
there, albeit in characters that are shared with other uses.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is a perfectly valid email address already.
It doesn't start to get tricky until we get into the eastern European
languages -- ASCII only intentionally provides western European
diacriticals.

Cue the debate about whether the diacritic should go before or after
the base letter.

-zefram

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Mark Crispin]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
> The number of people in India who can read and write only their native
> language, but have no usable knowledge of Latin script, is much larger
> than the tiny number who are familiar with both. I'm told that this is
> true for many native speakers of Chinese and Arabic as well.

I defer to your superior knowledge about India.

I do not believe that this is true for Chinese.  AFAIK, Chinese primary
school kids use Latin script with hanyu-pinyin as a stopgap prior to their
mastery of Han script (which takes many years).

> The use of local scripts is much more than just a "preference" for the
> numerous localisation efforts in India which focus on making computing
> more accessible to poor farmers and people in villages.

A poor farmer or villager in China is more likely to be totally illiterate
than to be literate in Han script but unable to recognize Latin script.

Note that when I say "recognize Latin script", I mean the ability to
determine that "dog" is a three-letter word that has the letters "d", "o",
and "g", each of which the individual recognizes and can name.  This does
not include the ability to recognize that this refers to a domesticated
canine.

> (I agree that it's currently nearly impossible to use computers if one
> isn't familiar with the Latin script, of course.)

Which probably makes the rest of this discussion academic, unless we're
going to undertake solving *that* problem for Microsoft and the various
UNIX/Linux vendors...

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Arnt Gulbrandsen]

Mark Crispin writes:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
(I agree that it's currently nearly impossible to use computers if 
one isn't familiar with the Latin script, of course.)
Which probably makes the rest of this discussion academic, unless 
we're going to undertake solving *that* problem for Microsoft and the 
various UNIX/Linux vendors...
You're not appreciating the full complexity of the problem. ;)

Not only should the email standards permit MUAs and MTAs of the year 
2020 to solve the problem Abhijit mentions, but they should even permit 
such future programs to interoperate with latinate ones of the present 
and near future. And if it's too hard for latinate MUAs to implement 
the IEA standard, that won't happen.

--Arnt

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Abhijit Menon-Sen]

At 2003-10-27 19:37:37 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I do not believe many individuals (other than primary school children) are
> literate in their native language but are completely illiterate in Latin
> script.  This does not mean "being able to read or write the English
> language"; rather, this simply means knowing the Latin script alphabet.

Mark,

The number of people in India who can read and write only their native
language, but have no usable knowledge of Latin script, is much larger
than the tiny number who are familiar with both. I'm told that this is
true for many native speakers of Chinese and Arabic as well.

The use of local scripts is much more than just a "preference" for the
numerous localisation efforts in India which focus on making computing
more accessible to poor farmers and people in villages.

(I agree that it's currently nearly impossible to use computers if one
isn't familiar with the Latin script, of course.)

-- ams

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Mark Crispin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Mark Davis wrote:
> Based on what I've seen, I think it quite likely that people will want email
> addresses in their native script, even if that means that outsiders can't
> (easily) use those email address.

That may well be the case.

> We should remember that for a great many people in the world, Latin
> letters are quite unnatural; it'd be a bit like if we had to use Greek
> letters in all email addresses. And there are many projects underway in
> less-developed countries to bring computers to masses of people that
> will even less familiarity with Latin letters.

I am not convinced that it is possible to use a computer on the Internet
anywhere in the world without at least a basic acquaintance with Latin
script.

I do not believe many individuals (other than primary school children) are
literate in their native language but are completely illiterate in Latin
script.  This does not mean "being able to read or write the English
language"; rather, this simply means knowing the Latin script alphabet.

Put another way, individuals who are completely illiterate in Latin script
are also likely to be illiterate in their native language script as well.

No other script on the planet has such international recognition.

There is undoubtably a *preference* for one's native script; and that
preference should be respected as much as possible.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Mark Crispin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Mark Davis wrote:
> I'm curious: why do you think that everyone would be satisfied with Latin
> characters only, and no non-Latin characters?

I didn't say that.  I stated my belief that, for reasons of practicality,
most individuals in regions which do not use Latin script accept the use
of Latin script for multinational exchange.

It does not work well for an individual in Japan with surname Tanaka to
expect the overwhelming majority of non-Japanese individuals worldwide to
know his surname is written with the Han characters for "rice paddy" and
"middle", or what those characters look like, or how to enter those
characters on the computer.

It does, however, work for him to expect that the overwhelming majority of
individuals worldwide to know how to deal with the 6 Latin letters that
form the romanization "Tanaka".

Nor is it very likely that this situation will change in the future.  I
doubt that many individuals in the world are literate in all the world's
active scripts.  Literacy in one's native script and basic Latin script is
something that most computer users possess today.

For domestic exchange only, that pair of Han characters are probably
alright.  Within Western Europe, it's probably alright to use Latin
characters with diacriticals.

Perhaps the main problem that needs to be decided in any IEA effort is if
it is alright to have email addresses that are only usable in limited
areas of the world; or if not, how to represent internationalized email
addresses in a usable fashion when (not if) the email address needs to be
represented for a person and/or computer is illiterate in that script.

A likely side issue is whether it is "good enough" to promote Latin
characters with diacriticals to the same status of "everybody must know
how to do these" that is required for ASCII.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Mark Davis]

Ok, I understand more about the context.

Based on what I've seen, I think it quite likely that people will want email
addresses in their native script, even if that means that outsiders can't
(easily) use those email address. After all, it is quite easy to have multiple
email addresses. Mr. Tanaka can have one with Latin letters and one with
Japanese (e.g. [EMAIL PROTECTED]).

We should remember that for a great many people in the world, Latin letters are
quite unnatural; it'd be a bit like if we had to use Greek letters in all email
addresses. And there are many projects underway in less-developed countries to
bring computers to masses of people that will even less familiarity with Latin
letters.

Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Crispin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IMAP Extensions WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 2003 Oct 27 17:15
Subject: Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)


> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Mark Davis wrote:
> > I'm curious: why do you think that everyone would be satisfied with Latin
> > characters only, and no non-Latin characters?
>
> I didn't say that.  I stated my belief that, for reasons of practicality,
> most individuals in regions which do not use Latin script accept the use
> of Latin script for multinational exchange.
>
> It does not work well for an individual in Japan with surname Tanaka to
> expect the overwhelming majority of non-Japanese individuals worldwide to
> know his surname is written with the Han characters for "rice paddy" and
> "middle", or what those characters look like, or how to enter those
> characters on the computer.
>
> It does, however, work for him to expect that the overwhelming majority of
> individuals worldwide to know how to deal with the 6 Latin letters that
> form the romanization "Tanaka".
>
> Nor is it very likely that this situation will change in the future.  I
> doubt that many individuals in the world are literate in all the world's
> active scripts.  Literacy in one's native script and basic Latin script is
> something that most computer users possess today.
>
> For domestic exchange only, that pair of Han characters are probably
> alright.  Within Western Europe, it's probably alright to use Latin
> characters with diacriticals.
>
> Perhaps the main problem that needs to be decided in any IEA effort is if
> it is alright to have email addresses that are only usable in limited
> areas of the world; or if not, how to represent internationalized email
> addresses in a usable fashion when (not if) the email address needs to be
> represented for a person and/or computer is illiterate in that script.
>
> A likely side issue is whether it is "good enough" to promote Latin
> characters with diacriticals to the same status of "everybody must know
> how to do these" that is required for ASCII.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Mark Crispin]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
> Thanks for taking a stab at a problem statement.  I'd like to drill down
> on this just a bit.
> What is the source of the "growing need"?  Is it:
> [snip]

I agree that this needs to be stated, but someone other than me will have
to do it.

I believe that the primary push for this functionality comes from regions
which use Latin alphabetics with diacriticals; and that most individuals
in regions which do not use Latin script are accept the use of Latin
script for multinational interchange.  In many regions where Latin
diacriticals are used, there is no acceptable transform of a surname to a
form that does not use diacriticals.  Simply omitting the diacritical
causes (at least to the inhabitants of those regions) a misspelling.

This set of beliefs naturally biases how I approach the problem.  The
problem statement must be free of bias, including mine.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Mark Davis]

I'm curious: why do you think that everyone would be satisfied with Latin
characters only, and no non-Latin characters?

Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Crispin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon, 2003 Oct 27 11:10
Subject: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)


> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
>
>  >> Thanks for taking a stab at a problem statement.  I'd like to drill down
>  >> on this just a bit.
>  >> What is the source of the "growing need"?  Is it:
>  >> [snip]
>
>
> I agree that this needs to be stated, but someone other than me will have
> to do it.
>
> I believe that the primary push for this functionality comes from regions
> which use Latin alphabetics with diacriticals; and that most individuals
> in regions which do not use Latin script are accept the use of Latin
> script for multinational interchange.  In many regions where Latin
> diacriticals are used, there is no acceptable transform of a surname to a
> form that does not use diacriticals.  Simply omitting the diacritical
> causes (at least to the inhabitants of those regions) a misspelling.
>
> This set of beliefs naturally biases how I approach the problem.  The
> problem statement must be free of bias, including mine.
>
> -- Mark --
>
> http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
> Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
> Si vis pacem, para bellum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Roy Badami]

 > Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)

Even though, given IDNA now exists as a proposed standard, the main
issues relate to the local part, the issue under discussion is that of
internationalized mail addresses, not just internationalized
local-parts.

Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
other potentially relevent issues.  For instance, one of the issues
that has been discussed on the IMAA list is whether full-width at
should be recognized in an internationalized mail address.  IMHO, the
charter shouldn't be framed in a way that is sufficiently narrow as to
render such questions out of scope.

-roy

Re: Proposed statement quotes wrong numbers

[Bruce Campbell]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, todd glassey wrote:

> What was the attendance of the last meeting then? and also what then is the
> sum total of unique EMail Addresses in the Lists then too? I.e. what is the
> total size of the Vetting Community Resource that the IETF brings to the
> Party as an enterprise/org???

Are you sure that you can count the (large) number of subscribers that are
on the main IETF lists, and the umpteen WG lists, as participants?  There
seem to be a lot of people who are subscribed to various IETF-related
lists who do not seem to participate in the IETF discussions.

( But theres still a lot more than just 700 people who participate in the
  IETF )

--==--
Bruce.

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Dave Crocker]

Pete,

>>RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
>>RB> other potentially relevent issues.
PR> I agree. Limiting discussion at this point to local-part does not
PR> take into account some of the possibilities.


That was exactly the intent of the text.

We have already seen how nicely the text served to bring into pretty stark
relief one bit of expectation from one of the proposals. It is only fitting to
have it serve the same purpose for another one.

IETF BOF time is pretty lousy for an open-ended chat.  Having specifications
to chat about is only marginally better than not having them.

What makes the real difference is having serious focus to the meeting. If we
go into this meeting without even having a clear sense of the scope of the
problem to be tackled, then the chance of having a productive meeting is
pretty small.

At the moment, it appears that the focus of the meeting is likely to be:
Shall we break existing Internet mail or shall we lay an enhancement on top of
it that preserves the installed base.  (I'm sure that everyone else who was
present at the pre-MIME/ESMTP discussions is really looking forward to
repeating the experience.)

d/
--
 Dave Crocker 
 Brandenburg InternetWorking 
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA 

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Zefram]

Dave Crocker wrote:
>   This poses a fundamental
>barrier for users needing mail addresses to be expressed in a richer set of
>characters,

I have yet to see this "need" established.  Everyone who has supported
internationalised mail addresses has axiomatically assumed such a need,
and has conspicuously failed to provide any more detail, such as any of
Keith Moore's suggestions.

I think the first task in this area should be to investigate the nature
and degree of desire for non-ASCII local parts.  This desire needs to
be weighed against the benefits we derive from writing all local parts
in a small, fixed alphabet (ASCII printables).

-zefram

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 05:39:32PM -0800,
 Mark Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
 a message of 76 lines which said:

> We should remember that for a great many people in the world, Latin letters are
> quite unnatural; it'd be a bit like if we had to use Greek letters in all email
> addresses. 

It would be a bit like if we had to use Greek letters in mathematics
:-)

RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[john . loughney]

Harald,

>
> > I almost feel that this should just be dropped from the statement.  My
> > reasons being that I have been told by the IESG about protocol
> > extensibility is that the IETF wants to have a tighter control over protocol
> > extensibility, even for extensions thought to be for limited use
> > or specific networks (for example, cellular networks).  The reason
> > being is that once something is out there, it often starts to be used
> > in ways which were not originally planned or used outside of its
> > original 'limited use' plans.  Therefore, in order to ensure proper
> > protocol behavior & interoperability, the IESG wants to manage
> > extensibility.  This has been very true in SIP & Diameter, 
> > for example.
> 
> True. Nearly a year ago, we attempted to publish 
> draft-iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more detail - 
> but we failed to get that finished.

So, I think we have to be careful about what we consider part of
the IETF mission, if we cannot get basic agreement upon the implications
of the mission statement.

> > On the other hand, we see a protocol like RADIUS, which the IETF
> > has never done a good job at working with or standardizing, being
> > developed in 4 or more SDOs, and not in a colaborative manner.  This
> > makes a big mess with the RADIUS spec, and RADIUS does seem like a
> > protocol that has a big effect on the Internet.
> 
> You'll have no disagreement from me that RADIUS is a problem!
> 
> > So, in summary, the IESG has shown not to follow the above paragraph,
> > sometimes even for good reasons.  I can't think of a way in which
> > modify the paragraph to make it any better - because there will always
> > be examples of work that the IETF choses to standardize (or not)
> > which will violate that part of the mission.  Perhaps moving the
> > 'for the internet to the previous paragraph is what is needed.
> 
> as I've said before - I don't think we can come up with a mission statement 
> that retroactively blesses everything we've done well before, or 
> retroactively curses everything we've done badly. And we do require 
> flexibility to "do what's right". But without the ability to talk about 
> what the mission of the IETF ... I think we'll do badly.

The past is the past, I don't want to revisit the past.  What I want
to do is to look forward.  We should have flexibility in terms of
how to decide what the IETF can do, what it can't do and what it
should (or shouldn't do).  I think we cannot make a blanket statement
in the mission that covers this.

thanks,
John

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Pete Resnick]

On 10/27/03 at 6:42 PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

RB> Even though, given IDNA now exists as a proposed standard, the main
RB> issues relate to the local part, the issue under discussion is that of
RB> internationalized mail addresses, not just internationalized
RB> local-parts.
Really?  What work needs to be done, except for local part?  IDNA takes care
of the right-hand side.
Please review John Klensin's draft before making these kinds of assumptions.

RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
RB> other potentially relevent issues.
I agree. Limiting discussion at this point to local-part does not 
take into account some of the possibilities.

pr
--
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Dave Crocker]

Roy,

 >> Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)

RB> Even though, given IDNA now exists as a proposed standard, the main
RB> issues relate to the local part, the issue under discussion is that of
RB> internationalized mail addresses, not just internationalized
RB> local-parts.

Really?  What work needs to be done, except for local part?  IDNA takes care
of the right-hand side.

So what is there to do about "internationalized mail addresses" other than the
local part?

RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
RB> other potentially relevent issues.  For instance, one of the issues
RB> that has been discussed on the IMAA list is whether full-width at
RB> should be recognized in an internationalized mail address.

full-width _where_?  somewhere other than local part?

if yes, then how can that be practical?  if no, then the charter does not
preclude their use.  (if you think otherwise, please explain.)

d/
--
 Dave Crocker 
 Brandenburg InternetWorking 
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA 

Re: [idn] Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Marc Blanchet]

- good start!
- timeline seems pretty agressive... will see.
- would probably good to have a requirement document upfront. Might not the
same way that idn requirement ends up, but a narrow-implementable
requirement would help to have a concensus (hopefully) on what needs to be
done. 
- while the idn req went not that good, now that we have experience, I
think we should try to be better and have one.

I know I might start some debate with this, but still think it is the best
way to go...

- would be useful to have some reference to idn (idna) in the charter, as
background work. the developers and users will have to take care of "both"
(ie. idn and imail) in the email infrastructure.

Marc.

-- Monday, October 27, 2003 16:19:25 -0800 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote/a ecrit:

> Folks,
> 
> On the theory that discussions go better when they have a concrete
> deliverable, here is a proposed charter for a proposed working group.
> 
> The following started with Mark Crispin's text, although it might not
> look it. Besides the usual goals for a charter, the following text
> attempts to specify the problem domain in the narrowest feasible form
> that is valid. If anyone thinks the scope is too narrow, they need to
> explain why.
> 
> 
> 
> DRAFT CHARTER
> 
> Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)
> -
> 
> The  portion of RFC2822 and  portion of RFC2821
> mail addresses are restricted to a subset of ASCII. This poses a
> fundamental barrier for users needing mail addresses to be expressed in a
> richer set of characters, such as Latin characters with diacriticals and
> the many Asian characters. The goal of the current work is to add
> local-part support for these additional characters, while preserving the
> large, installed base of ASCII usage.
> 
> The group will take:
> 
>draft-hoffman-imaa-03.txt
>draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-01.txt
>draft-duerst-iri-04.txt
> 
> as input to discussions.
> 
> The group will pay particular attention to barriers to adoption and
> utility, as well as any impact the new scheme might have on the existing
> base of Internet mail usage.
> 
> 
> Milestones
> --
> 
> Nov, 03:  BOF
> 
> Dec, 03:  WG chartered
> 
> Feb, 03:  Initial draft of working group specifications.
> 
> Jun, 03:  Specifications submitted for IETF approval
> 
> 
> d/
> --
>  Dave Crocker 
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking 
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA 
> 



--
Marc Blanchet
Hexago
tel: +1-418-266-5533x225
--
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
--

Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

[todd glassey]

Harald - I would agree that you are right here that the IETF's mission
process and in fact operations have fluttered in the breeze but the breeze
was caused by whoever was chair at the time's running by or away from the
key issue that they as the chair were given the ability because of a very
weak charter and very ambiguous processes (may instead of must everywhere)
create whatever it is they wanted. The issue is that the wants and mandates
of the chair's have changed over the years and so the IETF has changed in
response to that.


What that tends to indicate is that the IETF is responsive to changes in its
management's desires but not in the proletariat's... So then what I suggest
is the answer is a more rigidized standards process and in particular a set
of unambiguous policies and procedures that are at least modeled if not
tested before being released. And that are in and of themselves the same for
all they are applied to or around.

Todd Glassey
- Original Message - 
From: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission


>
>
> --On 24. oktober 2003 18:07 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi Harald,
> >
> > I'm going to pick on one statement, which other have as well.
> >
> >> It is important that this is "For the Internet,"  and does not include
> >> everything that happens to use IP.  IP is being used in a myriad of
> >> real-world applications, such as controlling street lights, but the
> >> IETF does not standardize those applications.
> >
> > I almost feel that this should just be dropped from the statement.  My
> > reasons being that I have been told by the IESG about protocol
> > extensibility is that the IETF wants to have a tighter control over
> > protocol
> > extensibility, even for extensions thought to be for limited use
> > or specific networks (for example, cellular networks).  The reason
> > being is that once something is out there, it often starts to be used
> > in ways which were not originally planned or used outside of its
> > original 'limited use' plans.  Therefore, in order to ensure proper
> > protocol behavior & interoperability, the IESG wants to manage
> > extensibility.  This has been very true in SIP & Diameter, for example.
>
> True. Nearly a year ago, we attempted to publish
> draft-iesg-vendor-extensions, to describe these problems in more detail -
> but we failed to get that finished.
> >
> > On the other hand, we see a protocol like RADIUS, which the IETF
> > has never done a good job at working with or standardizing, being
> > developed in 4 or more SDOs, and not in a colaborative manner.  This
> > makes a big mess with the RADIUS spec, and RADIUS does seem like a
> > protocol that has a big effect on the Internet.
>
> You'll have no disagreement from me that RADIUS is a problem!
>
> > So, in summary, the IESG has shown not to follow the above paragraph,
> > sometimes even for good reasons.  I can't think of a way in which
> > modify the paragraph to make it any better - because there will always
> > be examples of work that the IETF choses to standardize (or not)
> > which will violate that part of the mission.  Perhaps moving the
> > 'for the internet to the previous paragraph is what is needed.
>
> as I've said before - I don't think we can come up with a mission
statement
> that retroactively blesses everything we've done well before, or
> retroactively curses everything we've done badly. And we do require
> flexibility to "do what's right". But without the ability to talk about
> what the mission of the IETF ... I think we'll do badly.
>
>Harald
>
>

Re: FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[Dave Crocker]

Folks,

On the theory that discussions go better when they have a concrete
deliverable, here is a proposed charter for a proposed working group.

The following started with Mark Crispin's text, although it might not look it.
Besides the usual goals for a charter, the following text attempts to specify
the problem domain in the narrowest feasible form that is valid. If anyone
thinks the scope is too narrow, they need to explain why.



DRAFT CHARTER

Mail Internationalised Local-Part (MILP)
-

The  portion of RFC2822 and  portion of RFC2821 mail
addresses are restricted to a subset of ASCII. This poses a fundamental
barrier for users needing mail addresses to be expressed in a richer set of
characters, such as Latin characters with diacriticals and the many Asian
characters. The goal of the current work is to add local-part support for
these additional characters, while preserving the large, installed base of
ASCII usage.

The group will take:

   draft-hoffman-imaa-03.txt
   draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-01.txt
   draft-duerst-iri-04.txt

as input to discussions.

The group will pay particular attention to barriers to adoption and utility,
as well as any impact the new scheme might have on the existing base of
Internet mail usage.


Milestones
--

Nov, 03:  BOF

Dec, 03:  WG chartered

Feb, 03:  Initial draft of working group specifications.

Jun, 03:  Specifications submitted for IETF approval


d/
--
 Dave Crocker 
 Brandenburg InternetWorking 
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA 

Re: [idn] FYI: BOF on Internationalized Email Addresses (IEA)

[James Seng]

I seen John and Paul proposal but I have not seen Michel. Is there a 
draft that I can read up?

ps: I wont be able to join the meeting but I am interested in the subject.

-James Seng

Patrik Fältström wrote:

At the IETF in Minneapolis, there will be a BOF on Internationalized 
Email Addresses (IEA).

It is *preliminary* on the agenda on Monday, November 10, 2003 at 
1530-1730.

Chairs:  Pete Resnick, Patrik Fältström
Mailing list:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (other salient lists include [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Agenda:
Agenda Bashing (Chairs)5 min.
Topic Introduction (Chairs)   10 min.
Proposals
  IDNA-Based (Paul Hoffman)   15 min.
  Infrastructure-Based (John Klensin) 15 min.
  IRI-Based (Michel Suignard) 15 min.
Discussion60 min.

Topics for discussion:

  Are there other solutions which have been specified?

  The solutions present the problem at different scopes;

 Where should the IETF tackle it?

 Are some short-term, and other long-term?

 Can the solutions be staged or co-exist?

 If staged, how to migrate from one to another?

  What are the next steps for the IETF?

NB:  This BoF is exploratory in nature, and it is not intended that the 
IETF will finalize a decision in this venue.  It was proposed to foster 
a community discussion, not charter a working group or pick a winner. If 
further work is required, step one would be identifying individuals 
willing to carry that work forward.

Reading material:
  draft-hoffman-imaa-03.txt
  draft-klensin-emailaddr-i18n-01.txt
  draft-duerst-iri-04.txt
Pete and myself hope people will come with a lot of constructive 
comments and ideas.

Patrik, co-chair of the bof