Character set registration

Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com> Fri, 15 December 1995 03:00 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29222; 14 Dec 95 22:00 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29214; 14 Dec 95 22:00 EST
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa23016; 14 Dec 95 22:00 EST
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA24847; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:17:46 -0500
Received: from dimacs.rutgers.edu (root@dimacs.rutgers.edu [128.6.75.16]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA24825 for <ietf-822@list.cren.net>; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:17:15 -0500
Received: from glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu [128.174.81.2]) by dimacs.rutgers.edu (8.6.12+bestmx+oldruq+newsunq+grosshack/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA21039 for <ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu>; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:17:16 -0500
Received: from resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu by glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA09390; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:15:30 -0600
Message-Id: <v03004002acf67b076037@resnick1.isdn.uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 20:17:09 -0600
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-822@list.cren.net
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
To: ietf-822@dimacs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Character set registration
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: resnick@glaucus.cso.uiuc.edu
X-Mailer: Eudora [Macintosh version 3.0a64-1.96]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2 -- ListProcessor by CREN

>A Revised Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts


>directories. This draft is a work item of the Internet Message
Extensions 

>Working Group of the IETF.                                            
    

>

>       Title     : Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part
Four: 

>                   Registration Procedures                            
    


I was looking through draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-02.txt with regard to
the character set registration issue. First, a typographical comment:
Section 5.2.1 refers to a <italic>four</italic> week period for review.
Section 5.2.2 refers to a <italic>two</italic> week period for review.
Which of these is correct?


Second, a procedural question: After this draft becomes an RFC, will
the currently existing character sets that appear in the Assigned
Numbers RFC be required to go through the review? As I remember, many
of them were registered en masse a long time ago, and most of them are
useless for (i.e. unrecognized by any) MIME application. I would hope
that such a house cleaning occurs.


pr

--

Pete Resnick <<mailto:presnick@qualcomm.com>

QUALCOMM Incorporated

Home: (217)337-1905 / Fax: (217)337-1980