> > I hadn't realized that you and Steve had been discussing this, otherwise
> > I would have held off with BINARY for a bit.
> That's why I was a bit surprised to see your document! :-)
So was Steve :-) I apologise for starting all this confusion.
So is Steve still planning to do a draft on this :-)
> I like the XFETCH architecture,
> however I'm not convinced (yet) that a server should have to implement
> external channel support just to get BINARY. At this point I think the
> two are really distinct issues, and should be separate extensions.
OK with me.
The other VPIM requirements from the expired draft-ema-vpim-imap-01.txt (but still on www.vpim.org) are:
This document is an overview of proposals for various extensions to IMAP to meet the requirements of voice mail systems. The topics included are - Binary Attachment transfer - External Reference - Alternate Codec Request - Streaming audio attachments - Message length Indicator - Body part read indicator
Steve indicated to me last week that he would combine the first two into one proposal. Do we expect two proposals now?
Thanks,
Glenn.