Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses

On Fri, 15 Nov 1991 11:33:27 +0100 you said:
> 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.
Harald:

I agree that the header-extension stuff needs to be carried forward.

Personally, unless somebody can supply a *good* technical reason why
it *has* to be coupled with RFC-XXXX, I'd prefer that it be chased in
a seperate document.  I'd rather decouple the two issues, and get
RFC-XXXX *done*, so we can start deploying it while we haggle over
RFC-WWWW or whatever we end up calling it.

Add me to the list calling for a seperate RFC-WWWW.  Should we set up a
seperate mailing list for this?  I'm willing to provide a home for it,
if a home is needed...

                                  Valdis Kletnieks
                                  Computer Systems Engineer
                                  Virginia Polytechnic Institute

P.S. The last name, first 'e' should have a horizontal bar over it - said
bar was lost along the way because most data processing systems can't
handle the Latvian charset (as an aside - does anybody know if there's
an ISO-8859-X or other standard that addresses Latvian/Lithuanian charsets?)