[EAI] Re: DRAFT agenda, EAI WG

[Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
 
 [message/utf8 and MIME 1.0} 
> What would you suggest that we allocate as a timeslot

Depends on the MIME experts, if nobody is interested to
go to the EAI meeting and explain how MIME is supposed
to work you'd need no timeslot for this issue...

> what would you suggest we take time away from?

...hard to tell, picking the POP draft as example, it's
straight forward.  Maybe add the common windows-12xx 
versions like windows-1252 to the corresponding Latin
versions in chapter 5 by name.  It discusses UTF-8 in 
Content-*, that depends on the MIME version question:

Is UTF-8 possible in MIME version 1.0 header fields ?

I'm "sure" it's not.  But I was also "sure" that 2231
can't be version 1.0 because it implicitly introduced
a "no parameter name can be used more than once" rule
not explicitly stated in 2045..2049.

So maybe the POP3 draft doesn't need ten minutes.  Now
I could go through the other drafts like mailing-list
- oops, this I-D apparently needs a "2368ter" mailto -
trying to find other "too long" timeslots, but that's
odd.  

At the moment I'm mainly interested in the SMTP, DSN,
downgrade, and utf8header I-Ds.  Anything else will 
build on the core specifications when they are ready.

As long as the core I-Ds don't introduce showstoppers
for IMAP / POP / mailing list maybe these points could
be reduced to a "cando ?", and would need less time if
the authors signal "yes (so far)".  If they'd say "no"
(the mailto business in the mailing list I-D makes me
nervous, did the 2368bis authors check this I-D ?) you 
could regroup the issues by priority, and then see how
far you come in only two hours.

Frank



_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
IMA at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima