40 likes | 140 Views
EAI WG Agenda@IETF-66. Email Address Internationalization. Agenda. Agenda bashing Comments? Minutes taker? Documents Status Active Drafts Review(8 drafts, and 2 demonstrations) draft-ietf-eai-framework-01.txt (J. Klensin)(5 minutes)
E N D
EAI WG Agenda@IETF-66 Email Address Internationalization
Agenda • Agenda bashing • Comments? • Minutes taker? • Documents Status • Active Drafts Review(8 drafts, and 2 demonstrations) • draft-ietf-eai-framework-01.txt (J. Klensin)(5 minutes) • draft-ietf-eai-scenarios-01.txt (J. Klensin does for Harald)(5 minutes) • draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-00.txt (J. Yao)(5 minutes) • Testing Report by CNNIC (J.Yao)(5 minutes) • draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-00.txt (N. Hsu)(5 minutes) • Testing Report by TWNIC (N. Hsu)(5 minutes) • draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-00.txt (P. Resnick)(5 minutes) • draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-00.txt (Edmon Chung)(10 minutes) • draft-ietf-eai-pop-00.txt(Chris Newman)(5 minutes) no presentation, only comments for draft • draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-01.txt ( K. Fujiwara)(15 minutes) • Outstanding Issues • Current 5 issues, to be supplied
Documents Status Summary • Interim Meeting (Beijing) in June 6, 2006 • 6 WG drafts, transfer from individual drafts to WG drafts • Current • 8 WG Drafts, 3 in version01, 5 in version00, one is fresh • draft-ietf-eai-framework-01.txt, Published in 2006.06.26 • draft-ietf-eai-scenarios-01.txt , Published in 2006.06.29 • draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-00.txt , Published in 2006.05.12 • draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-00.txt, Published in 2006.06.05 • draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-00.txt, Published in 2006.05.31 • draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-00.txt, Published in 2006.06.22 • draft-ietf-eai-pop-00.txt, Published in 2006.06.28 • draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-01.txt, Published in 2006.06.29
Outstanding Issues • ATOMIC issues, Do we need ATOMIC? and if ATOMIC (or equivalent) are permitted, is the combination of ATOMIC and ALT-ADDRESS • (i) an error • or (ii) an indication that ATOMIC should essentially be ignored. • Is the syntax for 'alt address' in the envelope to use 2821 parameters or some trick inside the pointed brackets? How about inside the headers? • Do we need new extended error codes to cover the bouncing and downgrade cases? • Encapsulation Model issue. Do we really have a satisfactory model for encapsulation yet? • Terminology unification