Re: [Ecrit] Content-ID: Way forward without SIPCORE impact

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 8:55 AM +0000 10/9/16, Christer Holmberg wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>>>   One way to solve the Content-ID issue would be to ALWAYS use a
>>>  multipart MIME, even if we only carry one body part. See example in
>>>  section 12.2.2.3 of RFC 6086.
>>>
>>>   Another advantage would be that we would always the same
>>>  Content-Disposition header field value for the MSD/control body parts.
>>>  Currently the value is dependent on whether there are other body parts
>>>  in the message or not, which is a little strange. So, the
>>>  multipart/MIME would have C-D:info-package and the MSD/control body
>>>  part would have C-D:by-reference.
>>
>>  In view of the slow progress of your draft, I think the proposal to
>>  always use a multipart is the best option.  As you say, it simplifies
>>  the implementation because the C-D will always be "By-Reference".
>>
>>  (As I recall, the same idea was floated some time back, during the
>>  discussion about INFO.)
>
>  So, unless someone objects, I suggest we move forward with such approach.
>
>  Also, I'd like to see the a new version of the draft BEFORE the end 
> of the WGLC, so that I can perform a WGLC review based on that.

Now available.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
When a man's best friend is his dog, that dog has a problem.
                                             --Edward Abbey