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.
As I said before, I have no problem with this, subject to Jim's assessment
that it is feasible to make this change without undue damage to the
specification.
Ned