Re: Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-directory-type-00.txt

Markus Buchhorn <markus@acsys.anu.edu.au> Wed, 15 March 2000 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-confctrl>
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) id QAA26645 for confctrl-outgoing; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tnt.isi.edu (tnt.isi.edu [128.9.128.128]) by zephyr.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA26640 for <confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.41]) by tnt.isi.edu (8.8.7/8.8.6) with ESMTP id QAA06657 for <confctrl@ISI.EDU>; Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from accordion (accordion.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.58]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA01291; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:55:56 +1100 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000315115454.0114ce20@acsys.anu.edu.au>
X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 11:54:56 +1100
To: Ross Finlayson <finlayson@live.com>, confctrl@ISI.EDU
From: Markus Buchhorn <markus@acsys.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-directory-type-00.txt
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-confctrl@zephyr.isi.edu
Precedence: bulk

>>    This may imply that the use of m=directory is referencing a top level
>>    MIME directory type, which is presumably not intended?
>
>Good point.  I'm not a MIME expert - perhaps the format name should instead 
>be "application/directory", i.e.,
>         m=application/directory <port> SAP

application/sdp is registered - so should it be a subtype e.g.
application/sdp.directory ?

Or perhaps in the grander scheme, with multipart MIME messages, perhaps
multipart/sdp(.directory) should be registered, which would then look
similar to multipart emails (with each part containing its own specific
MIME typed element). Isn't a (sdp) directory really just a multipart
container ? 

See http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/

>??  Is this consistent with the use of MIME to specify other (existing) 
>kinds of 'directory' - e.g., LDAP?  (I can imagine that in the future we 
>might also want to allow for SDP descriptions that describe LDAP 
>directories.)  Anyway, I'll make sure to raise this issue in Adelaide.

There's a text/directory (rfc2425) registered, which seems to be quite
extensible as well. That in turn can have multipart components?

I can't find a MIME type that just refers to LDAP - that's really a
transport (directory access) rather than a container.

Just my $AU0.02

Cheers,
	Markus

Markus Buchhorn,  Advanced Computational Systems CRC     | Ph: +61 2 62798810
email: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au, snail: ACSys, RSISE Bldg,|Fax: +61 2 62798602
Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429