[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC-MNEM draft

1991-07-28 01:30:30
Randall writes:
  I would like to see the sentence below deleted from RFC-MNEM as I
don't belive it to accurately represent the consensus of this WG, the
IETF, or the IAB.

"The format defined in this memo is the preferred format for
exchanging alphabetic messages."

What is the "official" status of RFC-MNEM? Is it an "Internet Draft"?
Is is backed by this working group?

  I do not prefer to read the "Mnemonic" encoding over say using
BASE64 and ISO-8859-X or ISO-10646.

Even if *you* have an RFC-XXXX conformant UA and you prefer to receive
Base64'ed Latin-1, that does not mean that a large number of *other*
people will also have such a UA.

Would you send Base64'ed Latin-1 to a large mailing list in Europe
*today*? Why not?

Traffic on this list doesn't
seem to have reached a clear consensus on any of the defined official
methods being preferred.

I agree that we shouldn't "prefer" just one of the methods. We need
Base64 as well as Mnemonic.


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