STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for (1) textual message bodies in character sets other than US-ASCII, (2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies, (3) multi-part message bodies, and (4) textual header information in character sets other than US-ASCII. These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD 11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822. This initial document specifies the various headers used to describe the structure of MIME messages. The second document, RFC 2046, defines the general structure of the MIME media typing system and defines an initial set of media types. The third document, RFC 2047, describes extensions to RFC 822 to allow non-US-ASCII text data in Freed & Borenstein Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 2045 Internet Message Bodies November 1996 Internet mail header fields. The fourth document, RFC 2048, specifies various IANA registration procedures for MIME-related facilities. The fifth and final document, RFC 2049, describes MIME conformance criteria as well as providing some illustrative examples of MIME message formats, acknowledgements, and the bibliography. These documents are revisions of RFCs 1521, 1522, and 1590, which themselves were revisions of RFCs 1341 and 1342. An appendix in RFC 2049 describes differences and changes from previous versions.

STD 11, RFC 822 defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, but which leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for (1) textual message bodies in character sets other than US-ASCII, (2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies, (3) multi-part message bodies, and (4) textual header information in character sets other than US-ASCII. These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD 11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822. The initial document in this set, RFC 2045, specifies the various headers used to describe the structure of MIME messages. This second document defines the general structure of the MIME media typing system and defines an initial set of media types. The third document, RFC 2047, describes extensions to RFC 822 to allow non-US-ASCII text Freed & Borenstein Standards Track [Page 1] RFC 2046 Media Types November 1996 data in Internet mail header fields. The fourth document, RFC 2048, specifies various IANA registration procedures for MIME-related facilities. The fifth and final document, RFC 2049, describes MIME conformance criteria as well as providing some illustrative examples of MIME message formats, acknowledgements, and the bibliography. These documents are revisions of RFCs 1521 and 1522, which themselves were revisions of RFCs 1341 and 1342. An appendix in RFC describes differences and changes from previous versions.

Conventional statistical analysis includes the capacity to systematically assign individuals to groups. We suggest alternative assignment procedures, utilizing a set of interrelated goal programming formulations. We further demonstrate via simple illustration the potential of these procedures to play a significant part in addressing the discriminant problem, and indicate fundamental ideas that lay the foundation for other more sophisticated approaches.

Status of this Memo This RFC specifies an IAB standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "IAB Official Protocol Standards" for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

The two-group discriminant problem has applications in many areas, for example, differentiating between good c:redit risks and poor ones, between promising new firms and those likely to fail, or between patients with strong prospects for recovery and those highly at risk. To expand our tools For dealing with such problems, we propose a class of nonparametric discriminant procedures based on linear programming (LP). Although these procedures have attracted considerable attention recently, only a limited number of computational studies have examined the relative merits of alternative formulations. In this paper we provide a detailed study of three contrasting formulations for the two-group problem. The experimental design provides a variety of test conditions involving both normal and nonnormal populations. Our results establish the LP model which seeks to minimize the sum of deviations beyond the two-group boundary as a promising alternative to more conventional linear discriminant techniques.

No abstract

In certain settings, difficulties arise that limit the effectiveness of LP formulations for the discriminant problem. Explanations and possible remedies have been offered, but these have had only limited success. We provide a simple way to overcome these problems based on an appropriate use and interpretation of normalizations. In addition, we demonstrate a normalization that is invariant under all translations of the problem data, providing a stability property not shared by previous approaches. Finally, we discuss the possibility of using more general models to improve discrimination.

No abstract