ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: content-charset & checksums

1991-10-28 11:32:47
% Is there anyone for whom the attribute/value syntax is a show-stopper? 
% Certainly I can live with it, and apparently Mark can't live with the
% alternative.  How about moving all charset information into
% attribute/value pairs, and merging text & text-plus?  
 
% Does anyone object to adopting Mark's change, and making multipart
% something like...
        
  I have no opinions either way on any of the above. (surprise :-)
        
% In another matter, Alain Fontaine has convinced me that a checksum would
% be a good idea.  I'm inclined to do this via a separate (and
% optional/ignorable, for those who so desire) Content-checksum header. 
% Does anyone object to this?  Is it necessary to include this as part of
% the RFC, or can we allow it to be added by a later RFC?
        
  IF a checksum header is added in a later RFC, the I suspect that the
effect will be that it won't get widely implemented and won't really
buy us much.  If it is in RFC-XXXX and made optional, it still isn't
clear that it is buying much since both MUAs would have to implement
it to get the benefit and the receiving MUA can't require it to be
present.

  This makes me think that EITHER we do need a checksum and its
implementation by a conformant sending MUA should be mandatory, OR we
don't need one and we shouldn't have it at all and should omit it and
avoid adding needless complexity to an already complicated draft.

  I'll go along with whatever consensus develops on this.

  Ran
  atkinson(_at_)itd(_dot_)nrl(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil



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