ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft

1991-10-23 00:18:51
- We need a statement saying that EDI belongs under APPLICATION.
I am not ready to define it yet, but it will come, and should NOT be
mistakenly placed under TEXT or BINARY.

We cannot be in the business of trying to specify where all future subtypes
belong. This is a totally impossible task.

I certainly agree that EDI belongs under APPLICATION and not under TEXT or
BINARY. I don't see how it could possibly be placed under these latter -- EDI
is not text, and it is not undifferentiated binary either.

RFC-XXXX needs to be clear enough so that future associations like this
can be made correctly. But the way to do this is to be clear about what
the criteria are, rather than placing everything in categories right away.

If you have some suggestions on wording changes that would make this
easier to do please make them. Apart from that I do not think that referening
EDI in RFC-XXXX is a good idea, unless we're willing to do it all correctly.
I believe a number of parameters will be involved with EDI and I don't
propose to get into that now.

If you are specifically interested in getting EDI registered properly,
write an RFC that describes it and get it registered with the IANA.

                                        Ned