[UA-discuss] comments on uasg019b

[Tex]

slide 12 MSA should be defined on previous slide. And I know it is
ridiculously picky but it should be sending/receiving or sender/recipient
MTAs.

 

 

slide 14 the info about single and multiple scripts seems irrelevant.

The process of relating characters to values a computer can use is not
mapping but character encoding.

 

slide 15 is correct that mapping relates characters to numbers. That is a
different statement than the previous slide. (Those numbers are in turn
encoded.)

 

slide 17 should explain the U+hhhh nomenclature as a way of indicating the
number assigned to a unicode character consisting of 4 to 6 hex digits
appended to U+.

Alternatively remove the U+ references and just cite the numeric values
assigned to the characters shown.

Perhaps also mention that U+hhhh has nothing to do with U-labels.

 

slide 21. remove the comment that bidi text is often confusing to users.
Seems pejorative.

it isn't confusing if it is displayed correctly and the user can read it.
(Yes there are some cases that are ambiguous, just as there are in other
languages.)

 

slide 22- i dont understand the intent of saying domain can contain any TLD.
Any part of the domain can be unicode. Maybe you mean any IDN.

 

23 - Is there a recommended practice for validating user parts?

 

What should MUA do with a failed message? Anything different from other
failures?

 

24- fuzzy matching seems like a bad idea. Even case mapping is a bad idea
when multiple languages are introduced, as the case rules can change, even
for ascii characters.

If fuzzy matching is to be recommended, the rules should be specific.

 

what is the scenario where mail is sent from an mta to an mta that doesn't
support EAI?

If this is going to an intermediate MTA wouldnt it be better to attempt to
route to a different intermediate mta?

If the mta is the destination mta, then why wouldnt it accept the email for
the domain that it represents?

 

Perhaps, the scenario is I send an email to 2 people one uses an EAI, the
other not. The non-EAI recipient rejects the mail because of the EAI address
in the to-field, and the SMTPUTF8 commands, even if it isn't the local
destination address? 

 

 

27- avoiding easily confused characters seems too vague.  We want to prevent
"One" vs "0ne" (the letter vs the digit) but we don't want to eliminate the
use of zeroes.

 

Also, names that differ only in accents is too limiting. And by restricting
accents, it implicitly makes the names ascii equivalents. If this is the
recommendation then it undermines the benefit of EAI.

This also seems like a latin based viewpoint. What does this mean for
languages that heavily use modifiers?

 

It would be better to insist on exact matches.

 

Slide 29 Should discuss mailbox or address downgrading not message
downgrading

 

32 the summary talks about non-latin support, but EAI is about supporting
languages that are latin-based too.

Perhaps refer to languages that require characters outside of ascii.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20180801/7cf6913d/attachment.html>