Re: draft-ietf-impp-cpim-msgfmt syntax

John,

high-level comment:  thank you for pursuing serious, technical aspects of
the choice...

Thursday, November 7, 2002, 10:19:43 AM, you wrote:
John> As I recall, XML was dismissed, at least in part, because of its
John> requirement that binary data be encoded as characters.

That's why it is good to distinguish between header information and body
information.  Header (attribute/value information is typically short.  XML
and 822/2822 are both dandy for that.

MIME does labeling and aggregating of larger objects.  And isn't it
wonderful that it already does binary stuff?

John> For the same reason, it's a minor pain when dealing with digital
John> signatures and encryption.

I thought that MIME already solved that.  Twice.

John> I don't remember why there was no effort to make MsgFmt a profile of
John> RFC 2822.  I too would like to know why.

Once we get to a debate between these two, well-established syntaxes, I'll
lobby for XML, but let's save that until we get past the current choice.

d/
-- 
 Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email protected]>
 TribalWise <http://www.tribalwise.com>
 t +1.408.246.8253; f +1.408.850.1850




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]