Eric Burger (eburger@snowshore.com)
Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:37:00 GMT
You're not raising an objection: you're finding a major brain f*rt on my part! I had vpim-cc on my brain!
Message-Context is most definitely a top-level e-mail header!
-07 is following VERY shortly.
Thanks for catching that one!!!!
-- - Eric-----Original Message----- From: owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org [mailto:owner-vpim@lists.neystadt.org]On Behalf Of Caleb Clausen Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 3:44 PM To: 'IETF VPIM List' Subject: [VPIM] draft-ietf-vpim-hint-06.txt
i'm sorry to be raising objections at this late date. perhaps it is a reflection of my poor understanding of the issues, but there's a paragraph (at the beginning of section 9) in the latest draft that puzzles me:
> Section 9.3 is a registration for a new Content-Disposition > parameter, "Message-Context". The registration follows the > requirements for Content-Disposition registrations as described in > Section 9 of [2].
my understanding of Message-Context was that it was a top-level email header in it's own right, not a parameter to Content- Disposition. in fact, that's what it says in the very first sentence of section 1:
> This memo describes a new RFC822 message header, "Message-Context".
so, which is it: an rfc822 header? a parameter to Content-Disposition? or both?
if it is a parameter to Content-Disposition, that creates a problem. the message-context no longer is easy to parse without examining the entire message.
if it is both, that creates more problems. what if there are multiple, conflicting definitions, in both the Message-Context and Content- Disposition headers? do receivers need to look for the Message- Context in both places?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Jun 05 2001 - 14:41:20 IDT