RB> Restricting the disucssion to local-parts runs the risk of excluding
RB> other potentially relevent issues.
PR> I agree. Limiting discussion at this point to local-part does not
PR> take into account some of the possibilities.
That was exactly the intent of the text.
We have already seen how nicely the text served to bring into pretty stark
relief one bit of expectation from one of the proposals. It is only fitting to
have it serve the same purpose for another one.
IETF BOF time is pretty lousy for an open-ended chat. Having specifications
to chat about is only marginally better than not having them.
What makes the real difference is having serious focus to the meeting. If we
go into this meeting without even having a clear sense of the scope of the
problem to be tackled, then the chance of having a productive meeting is
At the moment, it appears that the focus of the meeting is likely to be:
Shall we break existing Internet mail or shall we lay an enhancement on top of
it that preserves the installed base. (I'm sure that everyone else who was
present at the pre-MIME/ESMTP discussions is really looking forward to
repeating the experience.)
Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>