ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SHOW STOPPERS in the new RFC-XXXX draft

1991-10-23 13:51:04
On Wed, 23 Oct 91 13:29:29 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
If we agree that a type can have at most one subtype attached, then we agree
that having a single T/V syntax for all parameters is good, and further
that char sets should be part of the parameter list.

Great, let's turn to the next big point.

A requirement was added in the new draft that bodies must have a Content-Type
and a Body-Version header.  I see this as a needless requirement.  It has the
effect of meaning that every `traditional' message must have the lines:
        Body-Version: RFC-XXXX
        Content-Type: TEXT; charset=US-ASCII
added to its header.

There is another evil thing about this requirement.  I'm surprised the special
interest group for MULTIPART/DIGEST hasn't caught it.  It effectively
abolishes MULTIPART/DIGEST.  Why?  Because it is no longer allowed to default
the Content-Type.  The only special thing about MULTIPART/DIGEST is that it
changes the Content-Type default from TEXT to MESSAGE.

This is a glaring inconsistency.  True, I will shed no tears for the loss of
MULTIPART/DIGEST.  But at the very least the requirement for a Content-Type
must be abolished, and replaced with an explicit statement that the default
Content-Type is always `TEXT; charset=US-ASCII'.