I hope that the mailinglist can agree unanimously that Ed's
modificaton as described below should be adopted as Ed has modified
it, and so head of another last call by the IESG.
We really do not want any more delay in adoption, if we can avoid it.
If I see no negative comment in the list, I will
"declare unanimity as registered by total lack
of negative comment on the list".
Thanks Ed for catching and fixing ther problem, which no one caught.
From your message Sun, 05 Jan 1997 19:57:16 -0500:
}I have submitted a revised draft for mthml-cid, it'll be
}<draft-ietf-mhtml-cid-03.txt>. In fixing a few nits I found an
}incomplete sentence whose missing part pertains to a requirement.
}The requirement was in the 01 draft but got munged by my editing.
}Here is the complete sentence and the corrected paragraph, altered
}text is overlined.
} In limited circumstances (e.g., within multipart/alternate), a
} single message may contain several body parts that have the same
} Content-ID. For example when identical data can be accessed
} through different methods [MIME, sect. 7.2.3]. In those cases,
} conforming implementations are required to use the rules of the
} containing MIME entity (e.g., multipart/alternate) to select
} the body part to which the Content-ID refers.
}The issue has been discussed on the list but because this represents
}a requirement that slipped through our last call I want to be explicit
}about the change.
}The other changes to the draft addressed the nits.