Re: HEX-UTF-8 vs. Unicode-escapes (was Re: [EAI] Re: utf-8-address syntax: ...)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: HEX-UTF-8 vs. Unicode-escapes (was Re: [EAI] Re: utf-8-address syntax: ...)



On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:27:29 -0000, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman at Sun.COM> wrote:

Good question. I would have preferred to use xtext, but this text from RFC 3461 makes that not possible without too much risk of breakage:

   Due to limitations in the Delivery Status Notification format, the
   value of the original recipient address prior to encoding as "xtext"
   MUST consist entirely of printable (graphic and white space)
   characters from the US-ASCII [4] repertoire.  If an addr-type is
   defined for addresses which use characters outside of this
   repertoire, the specification for that addr-type MUST define the
   means of encoding those addresses in printable US-ASCII characters
   when are then encoded as xtext.

The problem is that xtext is a transfer encoding which is removed when a traditional message/delivery-status part is generated and there's a hard requirement in today's deployed MTAs that the result of xtext removal be 7-bit ASCII.

Ah! I had not appreciated that the xtext had to be unscrambled when it was put into a message/delivery-status. So they force us into a double encoding.


All right, suppose we use %HEX for the utf-8, and we have a local-part
<esc>Aa+å
then it becomes
%1BAa%2B%C3%B8
which then has to be encoded into <xtext>, which turns out to be a Null transformation. I suppose that is as good as we are going to get.


The problem arises, of course, because delivery status was made (quite wrongly) to be a message type, and you are not allowed to C-T-encode message types. Really, one or other of those decisions needs to be reversed, but that is not so easy.

So xtext was badly botched.

Indeed so.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 ;    Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5


_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima




Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.