I am ok with either way.
I think using C-D follows the precedent of INVITE for finding "its body
part" via C-D of "session".
Thanks,
Paul
Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi Erick,
I am not your suggestion of using CID for Info packages is what has been discussed (I may be wrong, of course).
I think what Paul was proposing was to have a Content-Disposition value indicating that a particular body shall be treated as in info package.
INFO .....
To: ....
From: ....
Info-Package: foo
Content-Type: application/foo
Content-Dispotistion: info
...
<foo body>
Multipart mixed example with indirect content:
INFO ....
To: ....
From: ....
Info-Package: foo
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="theboundary"
...
--theboundary
Content-Type: application/mumble
Content-Disposition: whatever
<mumble body>
--theboundary
Content-Type: application/foo
Content-Disposition: info
<foo body>
--theboundary--
Regards,
Christer
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Eric Burger
Sent: Thu 30/10/2008 19:29
To: IETF SIP List
Subject: [Sip] Proposal for multiple INFO bodies in an INFO
Good thing I waited 10 days...
Initially, I was very swayed by the argument that things would be
much, much easier if we restricted an INFO request to a single Info-
Package.
However, and especially as the last person to touch RFC 4483, I can
see the argument that *any* SIP message can end up with a multipart/
mime body, even if you think you can limit it to just your stuff,
because the UA can always have a content indirection pointer in the
header pointing to a mime body part.
Therefore, even if we restrict an INFO request to carry a single Info-
Package, we need a mechanism to uniquely identify and, at the SIP
header level, indicate which body part belongs to the package.
I would offer once we solve that, we also get multiple INFO request
bodies for free.
I would also offer that since INFO does not change SIP state, which
means there is not even a concept of a message succeeding but the INFO
body doing something that "fails", the objection that it would be hard
for a UA to report on one body "failing" with another body
"succeeding" is a non-issue. Yes, this does mean that you cannot use
INFO to tunnel IP. See RFC 3252 for more on this. I do not see this
as a problem.
Therefore, on to the solution. We use the MIME approach. The body
parts get tagged with Content-IDs. The Info-Package has a parameter,
CID, which points to the body part. The ONLY question I have is
whether we should simply mandate always having this parameter to make
the protocol and parser easier, but a small burden on UAC's that
really are only sending a single body. Other than that, the mechanism
looks like:
INFO .....
To: ....
From: ....
Info-Package: foo
Content-Type: application/foo;cid=this
Content-Id: this
...
<foo body>
Multipart mixed example with indirect content:
INFO ....
To: ....
From: ....
Info-Package: foo;cid=abcd1234zz
Mumble: <cid:abcd9999qq>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="theboundary"
...
--theboundary
Content-Type: application/mumble
Content-Id: abcd9999qq
...
<mumble stuff>
--theboundary
Content-Type: application/foo
Content-Id: abcd1234zz
<foo body>
--theboundary--
Multiple Info Packages follow. Note that by using Content-Id, order is
irrelevant.
INFO ....
To: ....
From: ....
Info-Package: foo;cid=abcd1234zz
Info-Package: bar;cid=wxyz9876
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="theboundary"
...
--theboundary
Content-Type: application/bar
Content-Id: wxyz9876
...
<bar stuff>
--theboundary
Content-Type: application/foo
Content-Id: abcd1234zz
<foo body>
--theboundary--
_______________________________________________
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
