nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents
Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Fri, 14 June 1996 14:18 UTC
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20077; 14 Jun 96 10:18 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa20072; 14 Jun 96 10:18 EDT
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10242; 14 Jun 96 10:18 EDT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA07047; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:01:59 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no (domen.uninett.no [129.241.131.10]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id KAA06969 for <ietf-822@list.cren.net>; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:00:12 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <17807-0@domen.uninett.no>; Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:59:56 +0200
Message-Id: <17804.834760793@domen.uninett.no>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:59:53 +0200
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-822@list.cren.net
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: ietf-822@list.cren.net
Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.5 12/11/95
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
Folks, the time has come to move on the next step of the MIME documents. The proposal on the table before us is: There exist 6 new drafts, with the following names and proposed grade: draft-ietf-822ext-mime-imb-06.txt - Draft draft-ietf-822ext-mime-imt-04.txt - Draft draft-ietf-822ext-mime-hdrs-00.txt - Draft draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-03.txt - BCP draft-ietf-822ext-mime-conf-05.txt - Draft draft-freed-charset-reg-00.txt - BCP Most of these have been out for quite a while, and what initial discussion there was has largely died down. There is no active working group that has within its scope a mandate to review these documents. What I propose is this: - All of the interested parties, read the documents NOW. - If discussion on this list provokes no strong reactions against the current text of the document, issue an IETF-wide Last Call. I propose a deadline for discussion on this list of ***** JULY 4, 1996.***** (which will give me time to get back from the IETF and catch my breath) At this time, if no significant (in the minds of me and Keith) objections to the documents have been raised, the IETF-wide Last Call (4-week) will go out. NOTE: The assumption behind a recycle at Draft is that: - There is no new functionality. - There exist multiple interoperable implementations. - The current documents are clearer than the old specs, but specify the same protocol. Valid objections are that the document changes the protocol in an incompatible manner, that the documents are unclear, or that there are features that are not implemented and should be removed. If you want to CHANGE MIME, this is NOT the time to do it, since any CHANGE to the protocol requires a reset to Proposed level. Comments? Harald A
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents hansen
- nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Patrik Faltstrom
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents John Gardiner Myers
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Erik van der Poel
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Einar Stefferud
- Content-Disposition Charset Punt Rens Troost
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Rens Troost
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Ned Freed
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Ned Freed
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Harald.T.Alvestrand
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Pete Resnick
- Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents Ned Freed