Re: nonexistent-WG Last Call on MIME documents

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

A few revisions are needed to Harald's proposal...

> 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

First of all, the 6th document here is not part of the MIME set any more and is
not ready to move on to BCP in any case. It needs to wait for the final output
of the IAB Character Sets WorkShop before any action is taken on it.

Second, these are not the most recent drafts. The most recent are:

draft-ietf-822ext-mime-imb-07.txt     - Draft
draft-ietf-822ext-mime-imt-05.txt     - Draft
draft-ietf-822ext-mime-hdrs-00.txt    - Draft
draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-04.txt     - BCP
draft-ietf-822ext-mime-conf-06.txt    - Draft

I posted them some time ago but they don't appear to have made it into the I-D
directories yet, so I have placed them in ftp://ftp.innosoft.com/ietf-822ext/
for people to get.

The new documents are not materially different; a bunch of typos have been
corrected, some prose has been clarified, and a large number of references have
been cleaned up and updated. If you have already spent a bunch of time looking
at the previous revisions I would not worry too much about these updates. In
particular, the document with the most new text in this cycle, the registration
BCP, changed very little if at all in this (hopefully last) round.

A question for the WG, if I may -- while I don't want to do it this time, it
has been suggested that the content-md5 specification is properly part
of the message bodies document and should be folded in to minimize the number
of specifications people have to read to find out about MIME headers.
(Content-disposition would also qualify were it sufficiently far along, but
it isn't.) Is this something John Myers and I should consider for the next
round of MIME specifications?

				Ned