To: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)thumper(_dot_)bellcore(_dot_)com>
Cc: ietf-822(_at_)dimacs(_dot_)rutgers(_dot_)edu
Subject: Re: several comments on RFC-XXXX
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:08:44 +0200
From: Timo Lehtinen <ttl(_at_)sti(_dot_)fi>
I don't see multipart/archive as a separate content-type at all.
I feel the whole idea for the multipart message format with binary
encodings and all is the RFC-822 equivalent of tar(5) or whatever.
Many months ago I suggested a "Filename:" header exactly for this
purpose...
If we get into specifying filenames, should we also specify ownership?
File type (fixed/variable length, carraige control, record size)?
Permissions? How do we ensure that the filenames are portable to
all of the systems that might want to use RFC XXXX? How much "archive"
support do we want to wire into RFC XXXX?
RFC XXXX defines a convenient way to ship around application-specific
binary data over email. An application that packaged up multiple files in
RFC XXXX body parts would be very useful, but it should be defined
separately.
Keith