Re: MIME implementation documentation

[[e-mail]]

Thanks - I'm still missing a second generating agent, but now that you've
claimed generation for both PMDF command-line and the PMDF ALL-IN-1 gateway,
I believe we have one (from the same codebase).

The reason for the fuss is the change from 1602 to 1602bis, which we are
currently operating under:

4.1.2  Draft Standard

   A specification from which at least two independent and interoperable
   implementations from different code bases have been developed, and
   for which sufficient successful operational experience has been
   obtained, may be elevated to the "Draft Standard" level.  For the
   purposes of this section, "interoperable" means to be functionally
   equivalent or interchangeable components of the system or process in
   which they are used.  If patented or otherwise controlled technology
   is required for implementation, the separate implementations must
   also have resulted from separate exercise of the licensing process.
   Elevation to Draft Standard is a major advance in status, indicating
   a strong belief that the specification is mature and will be useful.

   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.

This is a new requirement compared to 1602, the rules under which
MIME was raised to Draft the first time.
It's a good question what the word "implementation" means here;
in this case, I chose to interpret it as "available and used in
commercial products" - partly because of the age of the MIME standard.
(John's "If this isn't used now, will it ever be?" argument)

Note that there is no such feature-by-feature requirement for going to
Full Standard!

                   Harald A