Re: Keywords for "SMTP Service Extension for Content Negotiation"

Regarding caching: I see no problem with MTAs that obtain conneg strings 
from a database caching those lookups.  OTOH I think caching is extremely 
dubious as a mechanism for propagating conneg strings in the direction
from the recipient's MTA to the sender's UA, at the rate of one hop per 
email message transmitted.

> The bottom line is that we're dealing with partial solutions in every case
> here. This makes it easy to criticize any given scheme. IMO this also makes it
> very much the WG's call as to how to proceed.

I think this is quite a reasonable statement if we are talking about a
fax-specific extension; less reasonable if we are talking about a generic
SMTP extension.

And regardless, I think more discussion is needed in the document about 
which parties have the responsibility for conversion (presumably the
sender's UA), and which parties have responsibility for providing
recipient information (presumably *all* of the listed MXes for that domain) -
this in addition to addressing several other issues that have been raised.

Keith