RE: [Sip] Editorial question on MIME example

["Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, 

>>Now, as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong) Content-Length

>>is NOT a MIME header.
> 
>Right, it isn't.  It could be argued that SIP's 
>Content-Length was taken from HTTP (RFC1945) rather than 
>MIME.  It could be argued HTTP took the idea from email -- 
>Content-Length used to be common in email headers a decade or 
>two ago (but Content-Length didn't work too well for email 
>for a variety of reasons).
>RFC2076 (February 1997) lists it, and says it was not a 
>standard email header at the time.
> 
>>If so, I guess it shouldn't be used as a MIME header (together with 
>>Content-Type, Content-Transfer-Encoding etc)?
> 
>RFC2045 does say:
> 
> Any sort of field may be present in the header of an entity,
> but only those fields whose names begin with "content-" 
> actually have any MIME-related meaning.
> 
>but of course Content-Length doesn't have any meaning to MIME 
>(neither would Content-Crayon).  But neither of those headers 
>do harm to a MIME parser, because a MIME parser ignores 
>fields it doesn't understand.
> 
> 
>I guess you're saying SIP should have used something like 
>"Length:" instead of "Content-Length:" to avoid collision 
>with MIME's self-claimed ownership of all field names that 
>begin with "Content-"?

No no.

I am not talking about the usage of Content-Lenght (or any other
Content- header) in the SIP part of the message. I was referring to the
usage of Content-Length in the MIME part of the message body.

Regards,

Christer


_______________________________________________
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