Greg,
One more comment on MIME.
Rather than defining your own MIME type, would it be possible to allow a
number of existing MIME types, which is where we are coming from.
Carl-Uno
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Hudson [mailto:ghudson at MIT.EDU]
> Sent: Friday, August 27, 1999 9:42 AM
> To: Manros, Carl-Uno B
> Cc: impp at iastate.edu; IETF-IPP
> Subject: IPP> Re: Notification Requirements document from the IPP WG -
> <http:// www. ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipp-not-03.txt>
>>> > Any chance that you will revisit the decision not to support MIME?
>> Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here.
>> All we have done so far in this group is write a model and
> requirements document (both of which are in working group last call).
> We haven't even made design decisions yet. The only requirement we
> have about the message format with regard to MIME is:
>> 7.1.8. The common message format SHOULD be based on
> IETF-standard MIME [RFC 2045].
>> Because this requirement is a SHOULD, and because it uses the phrase
> "based on," it is possible that the standardized protocol will use
> some variation of MIME, or won't use it at all. Or perhaps you'll be
> able to choose between MIME and something else depending on how simple
> your message is. Nobody knows yet. Of course we will revisit the
> issue.
>> > Have you nailed a maximum message size yet?
>> No; we haven't even discussed it. I certainly hope there won't be a
> maximum message size determined by the protocol, although individual
> sites may have their own policies.
>