Subject: [EAI] Comment to http://www3.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/eai/2006-11-09.html

From: Kari Hurtta <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Nov 2006 12:46:30 +0200

[17:33:28] <pguenther> william: bounce is best of bad choices so far; drafts for each alternative?
[17:34:18] <pguenther> harald: strong opinion in room that dropping header is bad
[17:34:29] <pguenther> pete: dropping includes downgrade header?
[17:34:39] <pguenther> harald: doesn't matter, strong against either way
[17:34:39] <resnick> So long as you get the Downgraded header, I think deleting the original and not bouncing is fine with me.
[17:34:52] <pguenther> harald: bouncing has problems
[17:35:04] <pguenther> harald: <need magic here>

My suggestion was to let sender specify which header fields must be preserved
(other headers my be encapsulated to Downgraded (or whatever) header fileds.)

That sugestion is on draft-ietf-eai-utf8headers-02.txt:

|  The "required-fields" parameter is defined for "Header-Type" header-
|  field.  Value of "required-fields" parameter is defined as following:
|
|   required-fields-value = field-name [FWS]
|                           *("," [FWS] field-name [FWS])
|                           ; the term <field-name> is defined in RFC2822

/ Kari Hurtta

_______________________________________________
IMA mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima