-------------------------------

Email Address Internationalization (EAI) WG Meeting Minutes

Meeting: 
    IETF 78, Friday, 2010-07-30 0900-1130: 0.9 Athens 
Chair: 
    John Klensin 
    Joseph Yee
Minutes: 
    Jiankang Yao

Blue Sheet, Scribe
    scriber: Jiankang Yao

Agenda Bashing
    none


Documents Discussion


RFC4952bis-02:
a) The WG needs more people to review all drafts. 
b) Reference of WG commitment: Volunteers-for-4952bis.pdf
c) The review process aims to be finished by mid August. After that, the draft will send for IETF last call.
d) The new keywords, to replace "UTF8SMTPbis", will be decided during IESG review
 

RFC5335bis-01:
a) Reference of WG commitment: Volunteers-for-5335bis.pdf
b) The review process aims to be finished by early Sept for IETF last call.
c) The draft needs update on ABNF syntax.
d) Some minor editorial works needed.


RFC5336bis-00:
a) Reference of WG commitment: Volunteers-for-5336bis.pdf
b) The review process aims to be finished by early Sept for IETF last call.
c) The keywords strategy (UTF8SMTPbis) is same to the framework document
d) The draft needs update on ABNF syntax.
e) Some minor editorial works needed.
f) The draft needs update on the ascii@non-ascii issue according to the discussion and voting of the meeting (details below)


EAI-DSN-bis (RFC5337bis):
a) Tony Hansen volunteers to be the editor.
b) The draft aims to be finished before end of Sept.


EAI-IMAP-bis (RFC5738bis):
a) Sean Shen volunteers to be the editor.
b) The draft aims to be finished before end of Sept.


EAI-POP-bis (RFC5721bis):
a) Jiankang Yao and Kazunori Fujiwara volunteer to be the editors.
b) Kazunori Fujiwara is willing to help the separate document of downgrade. 
c) The draft aims to be finished before end of Sept.


draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-07:
a) Editor(s) to be determined.
b) Aim to start around mid October.


Consensus via humming:

Question 1:  
    Does the legacy server need to reject the ascii@non-ascii message? 
Result: 
    Most in the room support that the legacy server needs to reject the ascii@non-ascii message. 
    No humming in favor of "no rejection". 
    Rejection of ASCII@non-ASCII is really an SMTP (5321) requirement and not within the WG's scope.

Question 2:  
    Wording: the legacy server "SHOULD"  VS "MUST" reject the ascii@non-ascii message? 
Result: 
    Most in the room support "MUST".
    No humming in favor of "SHOULD".


reminder:
Anyone who raised his hand and committed to review docs
should do so as promised. The following links are the photo graphs showing who had
committed to do so:

Those who committed to review rfc4952bis: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/eai-0.pdf
Those who committed to review rfc5335bis: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/eai-1.pdf
Those who committed to review rfc5336bis: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/78/slides/eai-2.pdf

---------------------------------