RE: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME

Here you go. Thanks. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 09:41
> To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); 'Paul Kyzivat'
> Cc: 'Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)'; Dale.Worley@comcast.net; 
> sip@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Francois Audet [mailto:audet@nortel.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:12 AM
> > To: Paul Kyzivat
> > Cc: Dan Wing; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); Dale.Worley@comcast.net; 
> > sip@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME
> > 
> > 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?)
> 
> RFC3261 says that already, on page 80:
> 
>    If the Content-Disposition header field is missing, bodies of
>    Content-Type application/sdp imply the disposition "session", while
>    other content types imply "render".
> 
> -d
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 17:15
> > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055)
> > > Cc: Dan Wing; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); 
> Dale.Worley@comcast.net; 
> > > sip@ietf.org
> > >
> > > 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 sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip