[Top] [All Lists]

Re: PLEASE READ -- Open issues list for RFC-XXXX

1991-11-08 15:18:18

A. 2:  Checksums:  There seems to be a consensus that we should have checksum
but no consensus on the mechanism, applicability, or level of requirement.

I like the analysis Dave C. suggested.  Checksumming of Base 64 is an
independent issue, and should be included.

A. 3:  Non-ASCII Headers.  The Keith Moore proposal, in particular. 
Should it be part of RFC-XXXX?

As I stated with my chairman's hat on earlier, this will be a separate
document.  IF it is ready at the same time as RFC XXXX, the two
documents can be published as a set.  The two documents cover
different issues, and may evolve independently.

B. 1:  Where are PostScript, TeX, and Troff?  

Unless a good usage statement for TeX and Troff is provided before
Santa Fe, these content types shouldbe dropped.  Elements to be
documented include Security, Macro Packages, Style files etc.

B. 6:  Character sets.  

B. 8:  Incomplete "character sets" -- How to handle 2022, 10646, MNEMONIC

We agree that ISO 2022 as use by our Asian friends is not a character
set.  It is a mechanism, and as such should be designated a text
subtype which reflects it's current usage. Same applies for NMONIC.
With a good write-up of necessary parameters, this should be included.
Keld-Mark?  It is not possible to write a good profile of 10646 at
this time and it should be skipped.

B. 14:  Trojan horses in mail

As I have stated, we do not need to design security, but we need to
document known problems.

Greg Vaudreuil