Keith,
Thanks for your excellent suggestions for additional parameters to
improve this MIME type.
What would you think of Experimental status for it?
Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd
dee3(_at_)torque(_dot_)pothole(_dot_)com
155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
Milford, MA 01757 USA
Donald(_dot_)Eastlake(_at_)motorola(_dot_)com
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Keith Moore wrote:
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 18:56:15 -0400
From: Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
To: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
Cc: moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu, iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org,
iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard
(I agree with the rest of what Keith said - however, there's one
area that's still up for grabs..)
tunneling IP packets. Even considering that a content-type for
transmitting IP over MIME might be useful for "monitoring, analysis,
debugging, or illustrative purposes", that doesn't mean that we
should
Do you think there *is* a use for monitoring/analysis/etc? And if so,
does the draft address *that* need, or could it be made to do so?
I expect that it does address that need. though for
monitoring/analysis/etc you might like some other information, like the
date/time/location at which the packet was observed, and perhaps these
could go in content-type parameters.
but from looking at the parameters that are defined, it really doesn't
seem like the intended purpose of this type is monitoring/analysis/etc.