Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-body-handling

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 03 July 2008 05:47 UTC

Return-Path: <sip-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: sip-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-sip-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8418E3A6930; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sip@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D78B3A6930 for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E5YBNe229tCW for <sip@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFEAD3A6A70 for <sip@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,742,1204502400"; d="scan'208";a="62442021"
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2008 05:47:52 +0000
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m635lpZl023676; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 22:47:51 -0700
Received: from [192.168.4.177] (sjc-fluffy-vpn1.cisco.com [10.25.236.82]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m635lpOO029651; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 05:47:51 GMT
Message-Id: <4A607918-B8B3-4B31-A623-7230375C513A@cisco.com>
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
To: SIP List <sip@ietf.org>, Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D990FC93-11C1-409E-8CBE-CACE851A5138@softarmor.com>
Impp: xmpp:cullenfluffyjennings@jabber.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v924)
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:47:41 -0700
References: <D990FC93-11C1-409E-8CBE-CACE851A5138@softarmor.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.924)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1941; t=1215064071; x=1215928071; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20<fluffy@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[Sip]=20WGLC=20for=20draft-ietf-sip-bod y-handling |Sender:=20; bh=tRxmj+FlWpCfRtZjuxqM69TSEiWV7SoMGpNPHF1ikZM=; b=ntoONPxo7paUeIUtP7QliGpSSZ/g1WMYIBLdrfdmeERxcY3kzxCmLLnXP4 mk9xVvSgeh8SL49Un1dUBZvUTzJa6474EmQg+knH99O4HJNCCAS8jUa5TH3i ffCOM7hYkg;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [Sip] WGLC for draft-ietf-sip-body-handling
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:sip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: sip-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

This document is good and looks ready to go to IESG.

One thing I think should be changed  - it says "Consequently, UAs MUST  
use the binary transfer encoding for binary payloads in SIP."
I actually believe that the binary transfer encoding is the right  
choice for all payloads regardless of if they are binary or not. (It's  
not like you are going to base64 encode the some ascii body). All  
binary means is the bits will get transfered without being molested -  
which is alway true for SIP since all the body handling is 8 bit safe.

So the change I would suggest would be to simply change "for binary  
payloads" to "for payloads". I think we had consensus on this in a HUM  
in a WG meeting back in 2004. A more detailed explanation of why think  
this is in

http://www.softarmor.com/wgdb/docs/draft-jennings-sip-mime-02.txt

Cullen <with my individual contributor hat on>

On Jun 25, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Dean Willis wrote:

>
> I'm pleased to announce a working group last call for the "Body  
> Handling" draft:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-body- 
> handling-02.txt
>
> This draft is intended for the Standards Track.
>
> The only minor issue I'm aware of is an outdated reference that  
> should have no impact on the review:
>
> == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-ietf- 
> mmusic-file-transfer-mech-06
>
> Please review the draft carefully and post your comments back to the  
> list and author.
>
> I'd like to conclude this WGLC period by July 11, 2008.
>
> Ok everybody, get busy reviewing!
>
> --
> Dean
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping@ietf.org 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip