Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses

> A. 3:  Non-ASCII Headers - other than several suggestions to move this
>         out of RFC-XXXX, the silence is deafening.  What's going on?
>         There were several demands for this earlier - if they are still
>         demands, I'd like to hear them before Santa Fe.  Otherwise, punt.
FLARE ALERT!!!!!!! FLARE ALERT!!!!!!!! FLARE ALERT!!!!!!! FLARE ALERT!!!!!!

There has been relative silence from the header-extension-demanding crowd
because we thought there was relatively total agreement that the =????=
proposal would either be included in RFC-XXXX after Santa Fe or moved into
a separate RFC that would progress at the same time as RFC-XXXX.

If this consensus is not present, the Scandinavians will all be wearing
asbestos suits :-) :-) :-) and demanding its inclusion.

It is a SHOW-STOPPER for me and MANY, MANY others that are overwhelmed by
the nitpicking arguments over checksums, alternatives and so on that we
MUST BE ABLE TO WRITE THE SUBJECT LINE IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE.
ANY MOVEMENT AT ALL that will result in this being missing when the RFC-XXXX
gets the status of an "Internet Standard" will be the subject of INTENSE
flamewars.

Is this clear enough????????????????????????????????

                         Harald Tveit Alvestrand
                         A scandinavian without extended characters in his name
                         - but unable to write his son's name in USASCII!!!!!