Nathaniel writes:
While I'm very disappointed that EUnet feels this way, I frankly don't
buy it at all.
Well, I would have thought that you, Nathaniel would understand
our position. Our arguments are very much in line with your
arguments for keeping RichText in MIME.
Mnemonic support can be registered with IANA after the MIME document.
Nothing at all is lost.
Timing is lost. Mandatory minimal support is lost.
Implementations are lost. Other RFCs like news will not support
MNEMONIC initially, so that would be lost too.
But meanwhile, we can't publish MIME, according
to the IESG, without deleting the MNEMONIC references.
Why cant we publish MIME with reference to mnemonic, according
to IESG?
If it comes down to choosing between IETF approval and EUnet approval, I
vote for IETF all the way. That leaves EUnet with the choice of either
registering their own extension to MIME in the approved way, which would
make a lot of sense, or else of designing their own alternative to MIME.
I think the latter would be rather foolish, but those are, to my mind,
the choices open to them. -- Nathaniel
Well, this is a statement in the IETF process.
I understand that the IETF standardisation is a consensus process,
and an ID cannot procede in the standards track if there are
SHOW-STOPPERS.
Keld