Re: [Ecrit] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ecrit-car-crash-10.txt

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

see end

On 9/22/16 5:46 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
> At 3:08 PM -0400 9/22/16, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
>>  Randall,
>>
>>  (Including ecrit)
>>
>>  On 9/22/16 12:26 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
>>>  Hi Paul,
>>>
>>>  Thanks very much for the quick review and comments.  I'm making other
>>>  changes requested by Christer, and I want to fix the ones you found as
>>>  well.
>>>
>>>  Section 12 is the Security Considerations.
>>
>>  In the -10 version I am looking at section 12 is Examples.
>
> Sorry, I missed that you were replying to -10; I'd incorrectly assumed
> you were replying to -12.
>
>>
>>>  Did you mean Section 11, the
>>>  Examples?  Or maybe Figure 10 (one of the examples)?   More to the
>>> point
>>>  on correct C-D, there's text in Section 6 that says:
>>>
>>>     If the body part
>>>     containing the MSD or metadata/control block is the only body part,
>>>     it has a Content-Disposition header field value of "Info-Package;
>>>     handling=optional".  If it is contained within a multipart body
>>> part,
>>>     it has a Content-Disposition header field value of "By-Reference;
>>>     handling=optional".
>>>
>>>  So this is wrong?  What should it say?
>>
>>  That text seems ok, at least for this case.
>>
>>  IIUC it isn't discussing the C-D *on* the multipart/mixed container.
>> It is discussing parts *within* the multipart. Those seem to be
>> correctly tagged.
>>
>>  The "Info-Package" C-D is only applicable for an INFO message. Since
>> this isn't an INFO message it makes no sense to use it.
>
> That was fixed in -12.
>
> I'm about to upload -13, which fixes the C-D issues.  I also added text
> to clarify that "handling=optional" is only used in the initial INVITE,
> to protect the INVITE from being rejected if it is processed by a legacy
> element (such as a gateway between SIP and CS) that does not understand
> an MSD.  I fixed the examples to comply.

handling=optional is probably wrong on the multipart for an INVITE that 
contains an SDP offer. The processing of the SDP isn't optional, and if 
you encounter a UAS that doesn't support multipart then you want it to 
fail, not to be treated as an INVITE with no offer.

	Thanks,
	Paul