Hmm. Seems like the point of mine and others emails was simplification. Somehow its come round now to a discussion of forcing implementors to do something more complicated... ;)
FM On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 12:25 -0400, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: Cullen Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > I think the WG should consider an update to 3261 (likely done through > > the process Keith has proposed) that makes this multipart/MIME > > mandatory to implement. > > > > I assume that the requirement is that if a message has a > > multipart/alternative body, and the UA is capable of understanding one > > part of the body, then it must be able to extract that part and use it > > to process the message. > > While there is a place for multipart/alternative, I think the key > requirement is that if there is a multipart/mixed then the UA should > look within it for one or more parts that it would know how to handle if > they were the only part in the body. > > While doing this it also needs to process the handling= parameter on the > Content-Disposition header. It can ignore parts with handling=optional, > but must punt if handling=required on some part and it doesn't know how > to handle it. > > Writing down precisely what handling multipart means in sip would make a > nice little draft. I expect there would be at least a bit of controversy > about it. > > Paul > > > _______________________________________________ > Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip > This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip > Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
