ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft

1991-10-22 00:50:51
Mark - I am going to comment only on a few of the issues you raise.

1. MULTIPART cookies

Yes, this is clearly a typo in the draft.  But, your definition is too
restrictive as well.  Basically, a cookie should be a parameter, which
means if I put it in double-quotes in the Content-Type: line, then I can
have anything I want other than CTLs.  (I want SPACEs.)

2. DIGEST

Wrong.  It should stay.  I've spent a long time looking at this too.
If people want to send simple digests, they should have a way of making
them rfc934 compatible, since there is a lot of things out there that
know about rfc934.  Including digest to make this functionality is
hardly a burden on anyone.

3. MESSAGE/PARTIAL

In thinking about it, I have to agree that the third param should be
mandatory.  The argument for it being optional is that you should allow
you to split a message in one pass, but in practice, I don't think you
can implement it this way.

4. SOUND

You've got the right idea, but you don't go far enough.  See my next message.

/mtr