On Thu, 5 Jan 1995, James M Galvin wrote:
Hey?! But wait.
Doesn't that mean the proposal already on the table is the simplest case
and it provides an excellent building block for getting implementation
experience with all these options?
I vote we go forward with the security multiparts document as proposed
and explore these other, interesting possibilities, separately and later
(as in after publication).
I'll buy this. Like I said, this isn't a showstopper for me and I realise
how last minute it is. I suggest that the current draft be modified
slightly to permit a comma-separated list of Content-Types in the protocol
parameter ("for future use"), and also relax the restrictions on "there
must only be two parts" a bit, and then move the draft forward as is.
Cheers,
Rhys.
--
Rhys Weatherley, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
E-mail: rhys(_at_)fit(_dot_)qut(_dot_)edu(_dot_)au "net.maturity is knowing
when NOT to followup"