Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard

[Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

Keith,

Thanks for your excellent suggestions for additional parameters to 
improve this MIME type.

What would you think of Experimental status for it?

Thanks,
Donald
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com

On Fri, 23 May 2003, Keith Moore wrote:

> Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 18:56:15 -0400
> From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
> To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
> Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, iesg@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: IP over MIME to Proposed Standard
> 
> > (I agree with the rest of what Keith said - however, there's one
> > area that's still up for grabs..)
> > 
> > > tunneling IP packets.  Even considering that a content-type for
> > > transmitting IP over MIME might be useful for "monitoring, analysis,
> > > debugging, or illustrative purposes", that doesn't mean that we
> > > should
> > 
> > Do you think there *is* a use for monitoring/analysis/etc?  And if so,
> > does the draft address *that* need, or could it be made to do so?
> 
> I expect that it does address that need.  though for
> monitoring/analysis/etc you might like some other information, like the
> date/time/location at which the packet was observed, and perhaps these
> could go in content-type parameters.
> 
> but from looking at the parameters that are defined, it really doesn't
> seem like the intended purpose of this type is monitoring/analysis/etc.
> 
> 
>