Mark Crispin wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Ken Murchison wrote:
I guess we didn't do a very good job during last call of this doc ;) I've only stumbled into these issues while implementing it. Maybe (as Rob suggested offline) that independent interoperable implementations should be a prereq (or at least strongly recommended) for a last call.
I agree.
I was rather surprised to find that BINARY[] is permitted by the syntax; I was sure that I had read (perhaps in an earlier draft) that a non-empty body part specifier was required.
We can, however, submit errata to the RFC editor, and get this fixed at the next go-around.
Before we jump to any conclusions (although I think we are correct on this one), I'd like to get some input from Lyndon, since he did work up a prototype in Cyrus.
I'd also like to get clarification on my other questions (see my followup to the "Issues with the BINARY extension" thread), regarding BINARY and BINARY.SIZE responses for nonexistent parts.
-- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
