Subject: [lemonade] Updated MediaSize draft (draft-shveidel-mediasize-04.txt )

From: Erev Ari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:54:59 +0200

Hello,

I have updated the SMTP MediaSize extension draft. For some reason, the
standard notification message was not posted to the lists, so I am posting
it "manually".

Many thanks to Chris Newman who contributed most of the feedback for this
version of the draft, as a preparation for last call.

If no major feedback is received within the next 2 weeks, I would like to
send it for IESG last call as an individual draft.

Discussion is on the lemonade list.

Reminder:
This memo defines an extension to the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol 
(SMTP) service whereby an SMTP client and server may interact to 
give the server an opportunity to decline or accept a message 
(perhaps temporarily) based on the client's estimate of the general 
message size and sizes of the media parts the message contains.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shveidel-mediasize-04.txt

Regards,
Ari Erev

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:54:29 -0800 (PST)

> send it for IESG last call as an individual draft.

My primary concern with this document is one I believe I have mentioned
previously: It creates yet another set of tags for media characteristics. The
IETF already has about half a dozen of these: Some are embedded in various
specifications while others are already set up as  actual extensible IANA
registries.

This proliferation of separate sets of tags is simply not acceptable, and has
to stop.

I strongly recommend that this document be reworked to use the existing
media feature tags registry:

  http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-feature-tags

Currently almost all of the registred tags have to do  with image
characteristics, so having some audio-related size tags would be a welcome
and useful addition.

There's no need to use the same syntax that's used for these tags in 
other contexts. Indeed, if you examine the registration procedures
set forth in RFC 2506 you'll see that they explicitly do not bind the
registry to any single use or syntax.

				Ned

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