Keld,
In response to your request for MNEM to be added to the base Mime
document, let me try to don my Standards Process area director hat
and explain -- again, I believe, since the general issue has come up
on this list -- what constitutes valid terrain for a working group
to cover when modifying a Proposed Standard specification, in order to
offer it as Draft:
1. Technical errors should be corrected. However, if the resulting
change is large enough, the specification might be required to re-cycle
at the Proposed Standard level again. The definition of "enough" is not
precise, but lack of upward compatibility is a good heuristic.
2. Enhancements which are extremely minor and which have extensive
operational experience might also be added, but only if there is very,
very strong working group insistence upon the need. In effect, the
working group has to believe that omission of such features constitutes
gross deficiencies.
3. Improvements to the specification's writing which do not change the
technical content.
That's it.
Your request does not seem to fall into any of these categories, as far
as I can tell. To the extent that one might consider it to qualify
according to the Enhancements criterion, I will note that I have not seen
a groundswell of messages from working group members insisting on it. Nor
have I noted any documentation of additional, massive operational experience,
beyond what was offered when MIME was original put forward for Proposed.
Again, please note that nothing is keeping you (or someone else)
from pursuing IANA registration of MNEM as a charset.
Dave