Re: audio, checksums, and trojan horses

> > 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.
Well, it seems like people are ignoring internet drafts that
are not part of the RFC-XXXX. Also people do not implement
specifications that are not part of RFC-XXXX. So for political
reasons (I agree that RFC-XXXX will be a step *backwards* 
forr headers from what is currently running in Scandinavia)
I think it must be included.

>                                   Valdis Kletnieks
>
> 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?)
There is a new ISO_8859-10 coming up which supports Latvian.


Keld