RE: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME

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

I think what we need to do is describe what you are explaining here, but
we need to make sure that we don't introduce backward compatibility
problems.

(e.g., maybe if Content-disposition: session is not present, it is
assumed
to mean session?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 17:15
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> Cc: Dan Wing; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME
> I would like to bring up something that isn't discussed much: 
> Content-Disposition. I brought it up earlier in this thread 
> for a slightly different reason.
> 
> One *should not* look for a particular body part of interest 
> solely based on the Content-Type. Both the content type and 
> the content disposition need to be correct. For instance, a 
> body part with content type of application/sdp should not be 
> considered an offer or answer unless the content-disposition 
> is "session". (This is confused because there are are also 
> defaulting rules for content-disposition.)
> 
> *In principle* you could have a multipart/mixed that had to 
> parts, both with content-type of application/sdp. This could 
> be quite legal if only one of them had content-disposition of 
> "session" and the other had some other content-disposition. 
> It would be sufficient for the other to have 
> "Content-Disposition:foo;handling=optional".
> 
> I realize this is obscure, and it isn't likely that anyone 
> will be including an sdp body part that isn't intended to be 
> an offer or answer. 
> But we are writing the specs here, and we ought to be 
> complete and precise about it.


_______________________________________________
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