Re: MIME implementation documentation

[[e-mail]]

John,
valid question.
The relevant section of draft-ietf-poised95-std-proc-3-06.txt is
4.1.2  Draft Standard, which says:


   The requirement for at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations applies to all of the options and features of the
   specification.  In cases in which one or more options or features
   have not been demonstrated in at least two interoperable
   implementations, the specification may advance to the Draft Standard
   level only if those options or features are removed.

Interestingly enough, RFC 1602 is silent on the subject of features;
it was probably a needed clarification.

I think I will have one question here for POISSON: Where should we
document features that are NOT part of the Draft Standard, but nonetheless
remain valid applications of the standard in question, such as body parts
in MIME that were in the current standards, but do not themselves deserve
elevation to Draft?

That is, does "remove" mean "remove from specification", "move to a
document with another status", or "mark as not part of the standard"?

Anyway, you're right, and we need that documentation. The WG chair is
responsible for gathering it, but we don't have a WG chair.

Shucks, we don't even have a feature list!

The IESG vote is scheduled for next week. Do we have a volunteer to
do some work on this?
If not, I'm strongly tempted to declare that this document was already
at Draft, so we're just continuing a historical mistake.....

                Harald A