Hi,
>Looks like we are clear on all this, except that:
>1. I would suggest making it explicit that you can add a Content-ID header
>even to a
> message with a multipart message-body to avoid any confusion. I am not sure
> that it
> makes any sense but I guess it wouldn't do any harm.
I
On 6/23/17 10:53 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
2. If a message of a kind that can legitimately have a Content-ID
arrives with a Content-ID (or indeed any Content-*) header but no
message-body, presumably one would send a 400 error with a suitable
reason phrase. I think it would be worth being
Hi, Christer.
Thanks for the quick response.
Looks like we are clear on all this, except that:1. I would suggest making it
explicit that you can add a Content-ID header even to a message with a
multipart message-body to avoid any confusion. I am not sure that it makes any
sense but I guess it
Hi Elwyn,
Thank You for the review! Please see inline.
>Summary:
>Ready with nits. There are a couple of minor issues related to the procedures
>after inappropriate usage of the new header.
>
>Major issues:
>None
>
>Minor issues:
>
> s3.4.1, last para: In line with the last sentence of Section
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
