RE: [Sip] content indirection design question

"Burger, Eric" <eburger@brooktrout.com> Tue, 14 March 2006 18:28 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJEFg-00061u-6D; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:28:12 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJEFf-00061o-0k for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:28:11 -0500
Received: from mxgate1.brooktrout.com ([204.176.74.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FJEFd-0001RL-NL for sip@ietf.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:28:10 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,191,1139202000"; d="scan'208"; a="30018512:sNHT46300356"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [Sip] content indirection design question
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:28:07 -0500
Message-ID: <330A23D8336C0346B5C1A5BB19666647026A33BA@ATLANTIS.Brooktrout.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Sip] content indirection design question
Thread-Index: AcY5sHEJGQq2HN/xROWpRuWtJ0PafAN5GE9A
From: "Burger, Eric" <eburger@brooktrout.com>
To: Nasir Khan <nkhan@bea.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 31247fb3be228bb596db9127becad0bc
Cc: sip@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: sip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Session Initiation Protocol <sip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.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://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip>, <mailto:sip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: sip-bounces@ietf.org

Dean is precisely correct.  While the mechanism does not look compatible
with other SIP stuff, it is the mechanism for MIME, which SIP is
transporting.  There is a ton of MIME infrastructure that we chose not
to break here.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Willis [mailto:dean.willis@softarmor.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 5:26 PM
To: Nasir Khan
Cc: sip@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] content indirection design question


On Feb 24, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Nasir Khan wrote:

> I have this question for the designers of http://www.ietf.org/ 
> internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sip-content-indirect-mech-05.txtThe way  
> the meta data about the indirect content is split between message  
> and body is counter-intuitive.  Eg. ----------------------------- 
> Actual-------------------------                        Content- 
> Type: message/external-body; access-type="URL";                 
> expiration="Mon, 24 June 2002 09:00:00 GMT";                 
> URL=http://www.example.com/the-indirect-content            Content- 
> Length : 234            <CRLF>            Content-Type: image/ 
> jpeg            Content-Disposition:  
> render--------------------------------- The Content-Type header  
> indicates that this is an indirect content and also contains the  
> pointer to the actual content, it contains a lot of other  
> information about the content and then there is a Content-Length  
> that is not the length of the actual content but the length of the  
> content attributes that appear as Content headers in the body of  
> this message, which contains some further information about the  
> content. This type of semantic overloading and distribution has not  
> been seen in most of the SIP design that I am aware of so far, what  
> were the reasons for this design decision?  You could have defined  
> a simple protocol (which you have done indirectly) which is  
> transported in the message body much like SDP and defines the  
> content as indirect content, as an example .. Eg.  
> ------------------------ 
> Suggested-------------------------------------------Content-Type:  
> application/indirect-contentContent-Length: 563<CRLF>Indirect- 
> Content-Param: URL;expiration="Mon, 24 June 2002 09:00:00  
> GMT"Indirect-Content:  http://www.example.com/the-indirect- 
> contentIndirect-Content-Type: image/jpegIndirect-Content-Length :  
> 234532Indirect-Content-Description : Happy fish image......etc etc.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ------------
>
>
>
> OR alternatively
>
> You could have extended SIP by adding these headers (Indirect-XXX)  
> headers in this draft to describe the indirect content and left the  
> body empty.
>
>
>
> Any of these approaches simplify the UA implementation,  
> particularly in approach-1 that I describe above, I could have used  
> a factory generated pluggable content protocol handler which is  
> delegated to deal with the content it specializes in, selectable by  
> Content-Type header alone which just reads the body of the message  
> after <CRLF>, where it finds
Interesting email format, seems to be devoid of newlines.

The history is like this: MIME had already defined message/external- 
body (RFC 2017) and its semantics. This approach was used in ietf- 
announce email for years, and I believe was still being used at the  
time SIP content indirection was introduced. In the usual IETF  
tradition, we re-used it rather than inventing yet another MIME type.  
Generality over simplicity, and all that.

Besides, this was what the MIME people told us to do.

--
Dean
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.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://www1.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