IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Update of the MIME-MHS Specs

"Harald T. Alvestrand" <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no> Mon, 18 April 1994 08:00 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25314; 18 Apr 94 4:00 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa25310; 18 Apr 94 4:00 EDT
Received: from survis.surfnet.nl by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07142; 18 Apr 94 4:00 EDT
Received: from domen.uninett.no by survis.surfnet.nl with SMTP (PP) id <25444-0@survis.surfnet.nl>; Mon, 18 Apr 1994 09:44:59 +0200
Received: from localhost by domen.uninett.no with SMTP (PP) id <08484-0@domen.uninett.no>; Mon, 18 Apr 1994 09:44:46 +0200
To: Steve Kille <S.Kille@isode.com>
cc: mime-mhs@surfnet.nl
Subject: Re: Update of the MIME-MHS Specs
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Apr 1994 10:30:51 BST." <1996.766402251@glengoyne.isode.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 09:44:43 +0200
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Harald T. Alvestrand" <Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no>
Message-ID: <"survis.sur.459:18.03.94.07.45.08"@surfnet.nl>

Agree that the FTBP needs to be considered.
Basically, someone needs to decide whether:

- The FTPB should be mapped into a single MIME entity
  (application/FTPB?) on the MIME side of things, or

- The FTBP should be one target of defined MIME<->X.400 translations,
  where stuff with no defined translation simply uses application/x400-bp.

I am not sure what issues you were thinking of in the MIME upgrade
(1341 -> 1521); could you be more specific?
The "advertising" for 1521 said "no significant change", and I don't
remember anything that would cause pain to 1494-1496, offhand.

                            Harald A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email