draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-11.txt   draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt 
Email Address Internationalization J. Klensin Email Address Internationalization J. Klensin
(EAI) Y. Ko (EAI) Y. Ko
Internet-Draft October 25, 2011 Internet-Draft October 28, 2011
Obsoletes: 4952, 5504, 5825 Obsoletes: 4952, 5504, 5825
(if approved) (if approved)
Intended status: Standards Track Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: April 27, 2012 Expires: April 30, 2012
Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email
draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-11 draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12
Abstract Abstract
Full use of electronic mail throughout the world requires that Full use of electronic mail throughout the world requires that
(subject to other constraints) people be able to use close variations (subject to other constraints) people be able to use close variations
on their own names (written correctly in their own languages and on their own names (written correctly in their own languages and
scripts) as mailbox names in email addresses. This document scripts) as mailbox names in email addresses. This document
introduces a series of specifications that define mechanisms and introduces a series of specifications that define mechanisms and
protocol extensions needed to fully support internationalized email protocol extensions needed to fully support internationalized email
addresses. These changes include an SMTP extension and extension of addresses. These changes include an SMTP extension and extension of
email header syntax to accommodate UTF-8 data. The document set also email header syntax to accommodate UTF-8 data. The document set also
includes discussion of key assumptions and issues in deploying fully includes discussion of key assumptions and issues in deploying fully
internationalized email. This document is an update of RFC 4952; it internationalized email. This document is a replacement for RFC
reflects additional issues identified since that document was 4952; it reflects additional issues identified since that document
published. was published.
Status of This Memo Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 27, 2012. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2012.
Copyright Notice Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2011 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents
skipping to change at page 4, line 38 skipping to change at page 4, line 38
set, the only way to incorporate non-ASCII characters in any part of set, the only way to incorporate non-ASCII characters in any part of
email addresses is to use RFC 2047 coding to embed them in what RFC email addresses is to use RFC 2047 coding to embed them in what RFC
5322 [RFC5322] calls the "display name" (known as a "name phrase" or 5322 [RFC5322] calls the "display name" (known as a "name phrase" or
by other terms elsewhere) of the relevant header fields. Information by other terms elsewhere) of the relevant header fields. Information
coded into the display name is invisible in the message envelope and, coded into the display name is invisible in the message envelope and,
for many purposes, is not part of the address at all. for many purposes, is not part of the address at all.
This document is a replacement for RFC 4952 [RFC4952]; it reflects This document is a replacement for RFC 4952 [RFC4952]; it reflects
additional issues, shared terminology, and some architectural changes additional issues, shared terminology, and some architectural changes
identified since that document was published. It obsoletes that identified since that document was published. It obsoletes that
document and RFCs 5504 [RFC5504] and 5825 [RFC5825], which are no document. The experimental descriptions of in-transit downgrading
longer needed due to the changes discussed in Section 12. The RFC [RFC5504][RFC5825], are now irrelevant and no longer needed due to
Editor is requested to move all three of those documents to Historic. the changes discussed in Section 12. The RFC Editor is requested to
move all three of those documents to Historic.
The pronouns "he" and "she" are used interchangeably to indicate a The pronouns "he" and "she" are used interchangeably to indicate a
human of indeterminate gender. human of indeterminate gender.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119
[RFC2119]. Although this document is Informational, those [RFC2119]. Although this document is Informational, those
requirements are consistent with requirements specified in the requirements are consistent with requirements specified in the
Standards Track documents in this set as described in Section 5. Standards Track documents in this set as described in Section 5.
 End of changes. 6 change blocks. 
10 lines changed or deleted 11 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.41. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/