Re: [sipcore] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-sipcore-content-id-05 - PULL REQUEST

["A. Jean Mahoney" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

On 5/26/17 11:27 AM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> 
>> On May 26, 2017, at 6:58 AM, Christer Holmberg
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ben,
>> 
>> I have created a pull request, based on your comments:
>> 
>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-content-id/pull/6
>> 
>> 
> 
> The diff looks fine. We probably want to make sure the WG shares the
> opinion that the Content-ID will never be referenced from outside the
> SIP message.
> 
> Jean, do  you have thoughts on that from the shepherd perspective?
> 

The WG did discuss whether the Content-ID could be used outside of the 
message. The takeaway was, that since a SIP header has non-MIME fields, 
the Content-ID can't really refer to the entire message, and thus would 
not be useful outside the message.

Anyone have any input on the changes to the draft?

Jean

PS - nit: Campbell is misspelled in the "Change Log".


> 
>> However, I wasnąt sure how to address the following comment:
>> 
>> "1.2 and 1.3: A sentence or two that more strongly contrasts "body
>> part" vs "message-body" would be helpful. I think that some people
>> will think of a message-body as still a body-part.˛
>> 
>> I think section 1.1 describes the difference between a message-body
>> and a body-part. I donąt think we should copy/paste that in
>> sections 1.2 and 1.3. Or, did I misunderstand you comment?
> 
> On reflection, I think this might be fine like it is. I know that
> some people casually refer to the entire body as still a “part”, but
> that doesn’t seem to be reflected in the MIME RFCs. Let’s see if
> anyone comments in LC.
> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>> 
>