Re: Last Call: SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation to Proposed Standard
Dave Crocker <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.fax |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
At 04:40 PM 7/3/2002 -0400, Robert A. Rosenberg wrote: >CONNEG appears at its root to be an attempt to avoid the "wasted" >bandwidth and processing time/effort to create a M-P/A MIME message most >of whose content the Recipient is going to ignore after receipt. It also >removes the requirement that the Recipient is even capable of parsing a >M-P/A MIME message to locate the "correct" version of FAX which it can >understand/process. Hmmm. As I recall, the specification was not developed with this goal in mind. However I think that you are pointing out a trade-off in the use of ESMTP/CONNECT and Multipart/Alternative that is largely correct. (I say largely rather than completely because there are some feature combinations that define so many combinatorials, they could not be considered for M/A but are straightforward for CONNEG.) Still, you do raise an interesting perspective. d/ ---------- Dave Crocker <mailto:[email protected]> TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850