The draft is completely devoid of any specific discussion of multipart. I'm
not sure how much it needs to say, since most of what you need to know is in
the multipart RFCs. To answer your specific question, positioning within the
set of bodies is defined with the multipart specifications. For
multipart/alternative, rfc1341 says that the LAST type is the preferred one.
However, for multipart/mixed, there is no semantic to the ordering. I
suspect most usages of multipart within SIP will use multipart/mixed, in
which case ordering is irrelevant, and so, according to rfc1341, your
implementations should be prepared to find the SDP whereever it may be.
-Jonathan R.
---
Jonathan D. Rosenberg 72 Eagle Rock Ave.
Chief Scientist First Floor
dynamicsoft East Hanover, NJ 07936
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FAX: (973) 952-5050
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~jdrosen PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 11:42 AM
> To: Mayank Sharma
> Cc: Jonathan Rosenberg; John Fisher; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Sip-implementors] message-body questions
>
>
>
>
> Mayank Sharma wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Are there any rules regarding where the SDP must be placed?
> > > - first child of the multipart?
> > > - any immediate child of the multipart?
> > > - arbitrarily nested in the multipart?
> > >
> >
> > How does it matter where exactly in the MIME part is the
> sdp stored ? you can
> > search for it through out the Mime...
>
> I don't know if it matters - that is why I asked.
> This isn't much of a problem if I build both ends,
> but may be if I am mixing custom and outsourced components.
>
> To me it seems reasonable that it could be any immediate child
> entity, as long as there is only one. If there is more than
> one candidate then what to do starts to be hazy. And if the
> session info happens to be embedded deeper, there starts to be some
> doubt whether it was intended to be used in this context.
>
> I am new to SIP, and this point seems unclear to me,
> so I am simply asking for clarification as to intent.
> Once I understand what the intent is, I may or may not
> want to suggest that the wording be changed to make the
> intent clearer.
>
_______________________________________________
Sip-implementors mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sip-implementors
