Keith, Thanks for your excellent suggestions for additional parameters to improve this MIME type. What would you think of Experimental status for it? Thanks, Donald ====================================================================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd dee3@torque.pothole.com 155 Beaver Street +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w) Milford, MA 01757 USA Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com On Fri, 23 May 2003, Keith Moore wrote: > Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 18:56:15 -0400 > From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> > To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu > Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, iesg@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard > > > (I agree with the rest of what Keith said - however, there's one > > area that's still up for grabs..) > > > > > tunneling IP packets. Even considering that a content-type for > > > transmitting IP over MIME might be useful for "monitoring, analysis, > > > debugging, or illustrative purposes", that doesn't mean that we > > > should > > > > Do you think there *is* a use for monitoring/analysis/etc? And if so, > > does the draft address *that* need, or could it be made to do so? > > I expect that it does address that need. though for > monitoring/analysis/etc you might like some other information, like the > date/time/location at which the packet was observed, and perhaps these > could go in content-type parameters. > > but from looking at the parameters that are defined, it really doesn't > seem like the intended purpose of this type is monitoring/analysis/etc. > > >