Hi,
Reading the feedback from John Klensin again, the main problem seems to
be that only 1 address does not leave any room for policy choices by all
actors in the chain (mainly registries and registrars) whether to
support a "backup" all-ASCII address or not. This is a fair point.
Now, if we
Pawel,
I agree that the protocol should not venture into policy decisions. The draft
could add an alternate email that can be either an ASCII or an SMTPUTP8 along
with allowing the existing email to be an ASCII or an SMTUPUTF8. With this,
the protocol can support the desired server policy wit
It appears that Gould, James said:
>Pawel,
>
>I agree that the protocol should not venture into policy decisions. The draft
>could add an alternate email that can be either an ASCII
>or an SMTPUTP8 along with allowing the existing email to be an ASCII or an
>SMTUPUTF8. With this, the protocol
