Re: MIME documents - the decision

Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no Sun, 25 August 1996 20:29 UTC

Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa00168; 25 Aug 96 16:29 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa00164; 25 Aug 96 16:29 EDT
Received: from list.cren.net by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09795; 25 Aug 96 16:29 EDT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by list.cren.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA15702; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:22:37 -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 QAA15683 for <ietf-822@list.cren.net>; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 16:22:16 -0400
Received: from domen.uninett.no by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <07938-0@domen.uninett.no>; Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:22:10 +0200
Message-Id: <7935.841004527@domen.uninett.no>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 22:22:07 +0200
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-822@list.cren.net
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
To: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
Cc: ietf-822@list.cren.net
Subject: Re: MIME documents - the decision
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Aug 1996 17:10:19 PDT." <01I8NTXOUJCM8Y59WJ@INNOSOFT.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Sender: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.7 5/3/96
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

Ned,
there are two questions that I don't think we should mix, I think:

1) What should people be able to expect from an implementation that
   claims to "send MIME"?
   That would be what I think you mean by "a set of MIME conformance
   criteria for agents sending MIME messages".

2) What parts of the MIME standard conform to the IETF pious wish
   for Full Standards?

(draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-06.txt)

   A specification for which significant implementation and successful
   operational experience has been obtained may be elevated to the
   Internet Standard level.  An Internet Standard (which may simply be
   referred to as a Standard) is characterized by a high degree of
   technical maturity and by a generally held belief that the specified
   protocol or service provides significant benefit to the Internet
   community.

If we think of that requirement on a feature-by-feature basis (or
bodypart by bodypart in this case), what will be the result?

I think sending the docs to the RFC-Editor isn't a tearing hurry;
you might as well wait until SCoya has the official announcement out.
Enjoy!

                      Harald A