Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions

Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> Wed, 21 August 1996 06:22 UTC

Message-Id: <01I8ILCUR1C48Y5617@INNOSOFT.COM>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 23:09:53 -0700
Precedence: bulk
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Cc: ietf-822@list.cren.net, Ned.Freed@innosoft.com, moore@cs.utk.edu
Subject: Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions
In-Reply-To: "Your message dated Tue, 20 Aug 1996 10:38:34 +0200" <26212.840530314@domen.uninett.no>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

> I have reached the following preliminary conclusion, based on the
> evidence collected in the Web page
> http://www.apps.ietf.org/apps/last-call/mime-draft2.html:

> - Multipart/alternative is implemented.
> - Nested Body Parts are implemented.
> - External Body Parts are implemented.
> - Multipart/parallel is NOT implemented.

I strongly object to this last. Multipart/parallel had multiple, interoperable
implementations in 1990, before MIME even appeared as an RFC. Facilities
to generate parallel objects without hand editing also exist.

> The evidence is a little weak on programs to generate nested body parts,
> and on programs that generate EBPs that are not FTP; I will not pursue
> this matter further at this time.

> Based on this, I will recommend the following to the IESG:

> - The current MIME drafts are accepted for Draft Standard
> - The RFC-Editor is instructed to delete all reference to
>   multipart/parallel from draft-ietf-822ext-mime-imt-05.txt
>   RFC 1521 will remain the definition of that body part.

Again, I strongly object to this last. 

				Ned

The MIME debate - my conclusions Harald.T.Alvestrand
Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions Ned Freed
Re: The MIME debate - my conclusions John W. Noerenberg