[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Minutes of the RFC 822extensions WG in Columbus

1993-04-08 21:26:00
<< I'd say it's better to bite the bullet now and work out how to allow
<< them. Using the rfc 1342 mechanisms seems appropriate.

< ...but severely incompatible with the current message/external-body
< protocol. We can't change the current protocol without breaking everyone.
< So we need to define a new protocol (or new access-types for
< external-body), in a separate document.

It's not at all incompatible if you follow the requirement (as Greg V.
suggested) that those names that >>can<< be expressed in 7-bits without any
encoding >>must<< be expressed in 7-bits without any encoding. The older
servers which don't understand encoded names aren't currently able to handle
8-bit names (because they can't be received), and they'll continue to be
unable to handle 8-bit encoded names (because they don't understand the
encoding). No change. However, newer servers which >>do<< understand such
encodings will now be able to work on such filenames which couldn't even be
expressed before.

It's a straight-forward extension which shouldn't require a new protocol,
access types, or even a separate document.

                                        Tony Hansen
                                att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony