RE: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME

["Francois Audet" <[e-mail]>]

 
> In RFC3204, the QSIG or ISUP parts do not appear to have any 
> meaning without the SDP.  Or do they?  For example, is it 
> meaningful for me to send an INVITE that has only the QSIG 
> part (and no SDP)?

Sure: it's just a delayed offer answer. 

> > (And really, it's way too late to change 3204).
> 
> Even if consensus were to be formed that there was a mistake? 
>  Obviously no such consensus has been formed, but I would 
> like to have the discussion.

I really don't think it's a mistake.

> If we do consider it acceptable to change RFC3261's 
> requirements around MIME multipart support, I suggest it is 
> reasonable to analyze what we may have done wrong elsewhere 
> around MIME with SIP.
> 
> > But, if I interpret your question in a broader sense, I guess, the 
> > question is "Do we need to say anything about 
> multipart/related?". I 
> > would extend it to parallel and digest...
> 
> And external-body, and all the other parts.  Yes, that is my 
> underlying question in light of Gonzalo's document and 
> Cullen's stated desire for the SIP community to document 
> multipart support.

Yeah, I think it would be worthwile to talk about it, but not in the
context
of 3204.

Frankly, what I think we should say is "RECOMMEND don't use unless some
IETF RFC defines a use for them".


_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [e-mail] for questions on current sip
Use [e-mail] for new developments on the application of sip