Re: Document definitions

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (Shmuel+gen@patriot.net)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 12:37:27 CDT


In <20040801153005.GB17926@dora.tertius.net.au>, on 08/02/2004
   at 01:30 AM, Thorfinn <thorfinn@tertius.net.au> said:

>No, just a totally pointless one.

Not pointless, because *IF* an RFC is accepted that adds a MIME
parameter, having the requirement here will allow for a quicker
phasein.

>If a future RFC wants to define a MIME parameter for an existing
>header, that future RFC will have *exactly the same problem with
>getting accepted and parsed correctly*, whether we say "MUST accept"
>or not in *this* RFC.

Not if some of the work has already been done as a result of this RFC.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7.