> For Multipart/Related (as described in RFC 2387), I > don't think it's applicable to 3204 as I think they would be > independent. My reading of 2387 is that they depend on each > other. > > This is not the case for 3204. They are not dependent.
In RFC3204, the QSIG or ISUP parts do not appear to have any meaning without the SDP. Or do they? For example, is it meaningful for me to send an INVITE that has only the QSIG part (and no SDP)? > (And really, it's way too late to change 3204). Even if consensus were to be formed that there was a mistake? Obviously no such consensus has been formed, but I would like to have the discussion. If we do consider it acceptable to change RFC3261's requirements around MIME multipart support, I suggest it is reasonable to analyze what we may have done wrong elsewhere around MIME with SIP. > But, if I interpret your question in a broader sense, I guess, > the question is "Do we need to say anything about > multipart/related?". I would extend it to parallel and digest... And external-body, and all the other parts. Yes, that is my underlying question in light of Gonzalo's document and Cullen's stated desire for the SIP community to document multipart support. > I guess we should. But I'm not sure what should be said. > If we don't have a use case for them, I'd rather we don't encourage > people to use it and create interop problems... -d _______________________________________________ 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
