ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comments on Draft RFC

1991-04-25 12:57:34
I would like to see a stronger statement that implementations *should*
discard the "prefix" and "postfix" areas.  Don't recommend the use of
them.  I am afraid that if a sending UA puts an important (judgment 
call) message in the prefix area, but the receiving UA discards it.
In my opinion, these 2 UA's are *not* interoperable.

I'm happy to say they should be discarded.  But are you also arguing
against the short textual message saying, in effect, "this is a
multipart message; if you're seeing this, you've got a problem"?  That
still seems like a good idea to me.


All I am asking for: RFC-XXXX must state clearly that all UA's and 
(822<->X.400) gateways should discard them and must not convert these
areas into textual body parts (it is IA5text in X.400.)  These areas
should not be exposed to the users.
 
Content-Label is set by the *sending* UA (e.g. the sender assigns a 
label "Phone_Message" to an audio typed body part) and it is more
user-friendlier than Message-ID when used in a reply message.  This 
field exists in each body part, but it is optional.  Message-ID is
different from Content-Label that Message-ID refers to the whole 
message and Content-Label refers to a specific body part in a message.

Ah, but in a multipart message, each "body part" is an encapsulated
message, and can therefore have its own message-id header.  Therefore
they are, I believe, functionally identical.  I'm also not sold by the
argument to "user-friendliness" because I think that, in either case,
the header field is intended for software use rather than for human
reading.  Or is this assumption incorrect?


The value in Content-Label is controlled by the user, but Message-ID 
is not.  The information in Content-Label is intended for human being.

-Vincent

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>