Re: Proposed Text for RFC2445 Issue #1

[Eric Busboom <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Stracke wrote:

> Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't it be much much simpler to NOT inline ATTACHments that
> > you want to convey such meta information for and instead put
> > them into their own proper MIME body part w/the desired
> > headers??  For the quite rare case of wanting to inline 'em you
> > lose that info??
> 
> Yeah, that does make sense.

If inline attachments for which a file name is important are going to be
rare then I wouldn't mind ignoring the issue. 

Then, unless there are other objections, I will REJECT RFC2445 issue #1. 

Perhaps we should also add a bit to the Implementors Guide, suggesting
that implementors stick to non-inlined attachments if the filename is
important.

Now, what do you think about issue #3?
	http://www.imc.org/ietf-calendar/mail-archive/msg04618.html

eric.