ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Internet Message Bodies DRAFT revisions

1991-06-25 16:42:56
I want to come down on the side of ...

"no conversion in intermediaries at all--if you can't deliver what
you received, as you received it, then bounce the thing"

in spite of ...

The problem is that we have seen ample, persuasive, evidence that
the "no conversion" rule, no matter how it is written, is going to be
ignored in some cases.

I have become convinced, through silence and avoidance of reading all
this XXXX effluvia, that it is hopeless to deal with the 8-7 encoding
anywhere but at the original UA posting point.  PERIOD.  FULL STOP.

So, what we need now is some strength of resolve on the part of the
IETF and the IAB to declare that THIS IS INTERNET OPERATIONAL POLICY,
and that anyone who does otherwise is in fact IN VIOLATION OF THE
INTERNET STANDARDS.

If the IETF and IAB will make such a declaration, then I beleive it
will be quite reasonable to self police operational conformance.

Furthermore, if some genious figures out how to do gatewaying on the
fly without detection, more power to her!  If it is absolutely not
detectable, I think we will all agree that it should be documented as
a standard and delpoyed.  So, we will have set the ultimate design
goal for those who want to do it anyway.  

        "Just don't ever get caught!"

I do not believe that we should let the IAB enforce a doctrine of
ANARCHY just because of some strange notions of freedom or some other
such thing.

So, I agree with John on this point ...

To say "we can be relaxed about conversions" in combination with
"lowest level encoding only" would be a show stopper for me ...

Chees...\Stef