regarding your comments on proposed media type text/troff' to Informational RFC

[Keith Moore]

Bruce,

I've already cited the relevant text, and given you several reasons why
this proposal is not acceptable.  Other people have also objected to
the proposal for the same reasons.  

The process parameter as you have defined it is not an essential part 
of this content-type.  Nor is it likely to be used in the way you assume,
because (as I have already said twice) content-type parameters are 
rarely displayed to recipients.   Nor is the parameter as you have defined
it portable to different implementations of troff that have different 
options.  This parameter is just poorly designed, and it's a security
risk, and there's simply not enough justification for it to be defined
the way you propose.