Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-rfced-info-spinellis-00.txt

Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch> Fri, 22 March 1996 07:24 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08050; 22 Mar 96 2:24 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08046; 22 Mar 96 2:24 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07876; 22 Mar 96 2:23 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08039; 22 Mar 96 2:23 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa08035; 22 Mar 96 2:23 EST
Received: from [128.9.0.32] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07870; 22 Mar 96 2:23 EST
Received: from dxmint.cern.ch by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-22) id <AA20711>; Thu, 21 Mar 1996 23:23:32 -0800
Received: from dxcoms.cern.ch by dxmint.cern.ch id AA28955; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:23:31 +0100
Received: by dxcoms.cern.ch; (5.65v3.0/1.1.8.2/28Jul95-0949AM) id AA20593; Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:23:30 +0100
Message-Id: <9603220723.AA20593@dxcoms.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Informational RFC-to-be - draft-rfced-info-spinellis-00.txt
To: rfc-ed@isi.edu
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 08:23:30 +0100
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>
Cc: iesg@isi.edu, rfc-editor@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: <199603211803.AA13427@akamai.isi.edu> from "rfc-ed@isi.edu" at Mar 21, 96 10:03:54 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 669

The spinellis abstract says:

 This document describes a standard encoding for electronic mail [RFC822]
 containing Greek text and provides implementation guide-lines.  The
 standard is based on MIME [RFC1521] and the ISO 8859-7 character encoding.
 Although the implementation of this standard is straightforward several
 non-standard but "functional" - though unlikely to inter-operate -
 alternatives are in common use.  For this reason we highlight common
 implementation and mail user agent setup errors.

Obviously, this can't be published as Informational.

    Brian

P.S. I have not read the draft, will not read the draft, and have
no comment on its quality.