> I'm also not sure, but you got me... :-) RfC 2229 is "only" > an informational RfC, and I don't know who could update or > replace it without the consent of the original authors. Seems like "I Gotcha!". :D > > can I directly put up an I-D? > > Yes, you can publish your ideas as I-D. One way to create an I think, if I don't receive a response from the original authors within a day or two, I'll take up the (tedious) task of making I-D and putting it up. Not quite sure how long does it take for final approval... :-? > [RfC 3986] > > Hmm... that's pretty new one. > > It's a standard, you can't ignore it. The old dict: scheme Not ignoring it. It's just that it's a new one.. and I hadn't noticed it. Jan-2005: very recent. > was registered because it was a "grandfathered" case, IANA had I think my new dict: scheme may break the old one. But that should be ok. The new scheme will make it live longer... and across versions: making a little more generic and extensive. :-) > [charsets] > > not sure if I'm making some sense here. > > Don't mention UTF-7, you get it if you want all MIME compatible > charsets. there's no reason to mention it explicitly. <gd&r> I agree. :D However, at this point, I give the server "MAY" status for the various charsets. "MUST" will be only with UTF-8 and MIME. It can be debated upon once I put up I-D. -- Cheers, Gaurav Vaish http://www.mastergaurav.org http://mastergaurav.blogspot.com -------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf