I agree that there is nothing special about INFO in contrast to any
other message that defines use of a body. (Well, there is *something*
special about it - we are considering it after the body-handling draft.)
I think *every* draft that specifies the use of a body needs to specify
how that body is identified.
The body-handling draft can clarify for all the preexisting RFCs, and it
also gives the general framework that applies to new drafts too. That
eases the burden of what needs to be in new drafts, but IMO *something*
should be in each new draft. It can be as simple as saying that it
consumes bodies of C-D "render". (We can continue to discuss if "render"
is the best choice.)
Eric knows way more about mime than I do. He seems to think that our use
of C-D is wrong, which is why I think he chose to use cid instead. I
certainly think we should take his position seriously. I don't know what
the best answer is here, but I think we ought to decide what we think
the best practice is, and document it.
Thanks,
Paul
Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:10 AM
I just want it to be clear under what circumstances you can use multiple
body parts in a message, and how a recipient of a message containing
multiple parts figures out how to process it.
Right, so that has two clear aspects to it:
1) Where do we solve it.
2) How do we solve it.
I assert that every issue raised so far on this thread with respect to multiple
body parts has been equally applicable to most if not all SIP message types.
No one has refuted that assertion as far as I can tell.
I claim, therefore, that the answer to (1) is: in a separate draft which
applies to all messages. Otherwise we run the risk that (a) we don't solve it
the same way, and (b) we delay this draft, and (c) we create a case where
someone fixes their handling for INFO multi-part bodies but not other message
types because they only implemented this draft, and we end up with split UA
personality disorder. :)
Just in the thread we have already heard a explanation of doing it based
solely on C-T, which is really wrong. So its obviously not clear now.
That is about aspect (2). I agree with you completely that C-T is not the
right answer, but I don't see what it has to do with this draft. We shouldn't
be defining a solution to the problem for *INFO*. We should be updating INFO
to fix what's broken in it now, and defining a solution for all messages in a
separate draft (presumably the body-handling draft).
-hadriel
_______________________________________________
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
