IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Tue, 10 April 2012 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87B0F11E80BE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.185
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.185 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.414, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sx5LLtLEVWwN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 160F711E80B8 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OE58YH0ZGW008JZU@mauve.mrochek.com> for apps-discuss@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01OE0NBOM18G00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:27:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01OE58YDHRAA00ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:26:47 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 10 Apr 2012 10:25:35 +0200" <4F83EE7F.3070707@gmx.de>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; Format="flowed"
References: <9452079D1A51524AA5749AD23E0039280C9874@exch-mbx901.corp.cloudmark.com> <01OE2UNN2HJ000ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <4F82B5F6.3050806@gmx.de> <01OE3UQGECV600ZUIL@mauve.mrochek.com> <4F83EE7F.3070707@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] WGLC for draft-ietf-appsawg-mime-default-charset
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:27:49 -0000

> On 2012-04-09 16:28, Ned Freed wrote:
> > ...
> >> I'm also not totally convinced that HTTPbis actually needs to reference
> >> this document at all; any opinions on this?
> >
> > Really ard to say without knowing how they deal with the iso-8859-1. I
> > can see
> > it being done in a way that doesn't need a reference. Or it could be
> > done in a
> > way where a reference would be helpful.

> HTTPbis simply has stopped having a custom rule; it just delegates to
> the applicable MIME specs. ->
> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/20>

Well, the change certainly needs to be noted as a change somewhere, don't
you think? Otherwise people could easily assume that the rule is in there
(and there's a lot of "there") somewhere.

				Ned

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status