On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:20 AM, John C Klensin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Would such a statement be improved by a forward pointer from > Section 8.5? Anywhere else? 8.6 and 8.8. Or mention it in the beginning of 8? > This also raises one other issue that apparently was not raised > in the pre-evaluation process. RFC 4141 provides specific > mechanisms and headers for content conversions of various sorts > by intermediaries who have no specific control relationship to > either the sender or the receiver. I believe that the > conversions contemplated there have always been permitted to > MSAs, even before we started explicitly documenting that fact in > RFC 2476. The new text (from the pre-evaluation document) > explicitly says that the 4141 extensions MAY be used with MSAs. > Should the document go a half-step further and indicate that > content conversions may still be applied by the MSA whether the > 4141 extensions are specified or not and that an MSA MAY add > 4141 header fields when it makes such conversions? This seems logical to me. But I fully admit not being savvy to 4141. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
