John C Klensin wrote:
Hi.
This is a tiny nit, but, since -13 has not yet been posted...
A few of the references list organizations and not authors as
authors and should probably be fixed.[RFC5335] sort of leapt
out at me. A quick scan also turned up [RFC1652], but I have
not done a
Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new
bullet in 6.3 says
o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of
true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability
to internationalization.
It is not obvious at all.
Excuse me? If it isn't obvious that a
Hi Dave,
At 08:33 15-05-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The text is not normative and is providing the historical chain of
development for transfer and content specifications.
If you want to provide the historical chain of development, you'll
have to start with RFC 1341 for MIME. Mail routing is
--On Saturday, May 16, 2009 07:23 -0700 Ned Freed
ned.fr...@mrochek.com wrote:
Comment on new text introduced into -13. The text in a new
bullet in 6.3 says
o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of
true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability
to
On 5/16/09 5:28 PM, SM wrote:
If you want to provide the historical chain of development, you'll
have to start with RFC 1341 for MIME. Mail routing is covered in RFC
974. There's also RFC 1123 which updates or annotates portions of RFC
821 to conform to current usage (at that time). RFC
John C Klensin wrote:
o MIME's [RFC2045] and [RFC2046] allow for the transport of
true multimedia material, which has obvious applicability
to internationalization.
It is not obvious at all.
It's actually wrong.
Considering that 7bit e-mail was already internationalized by ISO
2022, which can
