Here you go. Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Wing [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 09:41 > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055); 'Paul Kyzivat' > Cc: 'Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF)'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip] Support for Multipart/MIME > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Francois Audet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:12 AM > > To: Paul Kyzivat > > Cc: Dan Wing; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > [email protected] > > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 17:15 > > > To: Audet, Francois (SC100:3055) > > > Cc: Dan Wing; Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > > > [email protected] > > > > > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
