Sedlacek Ivo wrote: > Just to be absolutely sure - do you mean that it is more appropriate to > create a new disposition-type of the Content-Disposition header (rather > than creating new "handling" parameter values)? Thanks.
Yes. We have already created several for use with SIP. While I don't think this is something we want a *lot* of, with enough justification it is reasonable to create another. You should take a look at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-body-handling-03.txt Thanks, Paul > Kind regards > > Ivo Sedlacek > Siemens > PSE CZ TMM MMA8 > phone: +420 5 3877 6532 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Mailcode: tL3PbjBL > > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19. září 2008 14:08 > To: Sedlacek Ivo > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] [sip] extensions of "handling" parameter of > Content-Disposition header > > I can't think why you would want to have added values for the handling > parameter. IMO what you want to do would be better served by values of > the Content-Disposition itself. > > Thanks, > Paul > > Sedlacek Ivo wrote: > > Hello, > > > > can anyone please give me an expert opinion on possible extensions of > > "handling" parameter defined in RFC3204/RFC3459? > > > > Is it appropriate to extend and use the "handling" parameter of > > Content-Disposition header of a MIME body inserted in a SIP request to > > signal a particular action which the sender requests from the recipient? > > > > For example - if the "handling" parameter contained value "XYZ", the SIP > > request recipient would do a special action ActionXYZ using the MIME > > body. If the MIME body was included in the SIP request without the > > "handling" parameter, the recipient would NOT do the special action XYZ > > and instead would just store or render the MIME body. > > > > AFAIK, RFC3204 defines parameter "handling" of Content-Disposition > > header of a MIME body with two defined parameter values "required" and > > "optional" and allows for possible future extensions. RFC3204 also > > states "The handling parameter, handling-parm, describes how the UAS > > should react if it receives a message body whose content type or > > disposition type it does not understand". RFC3459 says "The protocol > > described here is identical in functionality to RFC 3204 with respect to > > SIP.". > > > > Kind regards > > > > *Ivo Sedlacek* > > Siemens > > PSE CZ TMM MMA8 > > phone: +420 5 3877 6532 <tel:+420543106532> > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Mailcode: tL3PbjBL > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
