Re: Archive (was: Issues outstanding)

["Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <41D34D01.33FD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Frank Ellermann <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>Charles Lindsey wrote:

>> the question to be decided is whether or not to retain the
>> filename parameter in our Archive header, both because of its
>> possible future use, and also to allow future extensions to
>> add further parameters.

>The latter is an unrelated issue, here's an example (RfC 3834):

>|  auto-submitted-field     = "Auto-Submitted:" [CFWS]
>|                             auto-submitted [CFWS] CRLF
>|  auto-submitted           = ( "no" / "auto-generated" /
>|                             "auto-replied" / extension )
>|                             opt-parameter-list
>|  extension                = token
>|  opt-parameter-list       = *( [CFWS] ";" [CFWS] parameter )
>|
>| The symbols "CFWS" and "CRLF" are defined in [N2.RFC2822].
>| The symbols "token", and "parameter" are as defined in
>| [N7.RFC2045] (as amended by [N4.RFC2231]).

Aha! So Keith Moore has authored a standard which defines a header with
MIME-style parameters to allow for future extensibility, even though he
vehemently opposes any such headers suggested by other people on the
ietf-822 mailing list :-) .

But that header does set a precedent for the use of MIME-style parameters
in other headers, and what we propose for the Archive header (and the
Injectio-Info header) is of basically the same form.

And some of the wording from RFC 3834 might be useful to copy into USEFOR.

Do I take it that you are content to leave the Archive header as we have
so far defined it?

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Email: chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5