1. Email Address Internationalization
EAI WG
Address Internationalization

2. Agenda Agenda bashing Documents Status
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

3. 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
draft-ietf-eai-scenarios-01.txt , Published in
draft-ietf-eai-smtpext-00.txt , Published in
draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-00.txt, Published in
draft-ietf-eai-imap-utf8-00.txt, Published in
draft-ietf-eai-mailinglist-00.txt, Published in
draft-ietf-eai-pop-00.txt, Published in
draft-ietf-eai-downgrade-01.txt, Published in

4. 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