Hi, My main concern is not what wording (SHALL, MUST, etc) we use.
The issue is that I think we need text saying what implementations that DO NOT support alternative and/or nested shall do. If we say that they shall reject the message I believe that many of the existing implementations will be compliant with the spec. And, if we give the possibility to simply reject the message, I believe it will be easier to get people to change their implementations, if they currently simply discard alternative and/or nested today. Regards, Christer > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29. toukokuuta 2007 16:06 > To: Paul Kyzivat > Cc: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Sip] MIME: Nested bodies with option-tag? > > Hi, > > what I am hearing is that there are implementations out there > that support multipart but not nested. Therefore, we need to > decide two things: > > 1) do we want to have a MUST for multipart and a SHOULD for > nested? I would say that we should have the same level (e.g., > MUST, if we decided that MUST is appropriate) for both. > > 2) do we need a way for implementations that support > multipart but not nested to be quickly updated to, at least, > report that fact with an error response? This may make sense. > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > More or less repeating what I said before: > > > > I expect we do have to account in some way for implementations that > > have already been deployed, in absence of a clarifying document. > > Exactly how we deal with that is still TBD. > > > > But as we define what is required to support this in the future, I > > think there is *no* benefit to defining two levels of > support - full > > and partial. Anybody that sets out to provide support for this > > document should be expected to do it all - its not that much harder. > > > > Paul > > > > Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) wrote: > >> Hi, > >>> I wonder whether we should define an option-tag for the > support of > >>> nested bodies. > >>> > >>> I don't think there's a lot to be gained from defining such an > >>> option-tag. The sender should already be aware that > there is a risk > >>> the recipient can't understand nested bodies, and have > arranged for > >>> suitable fallbacks. Conversely, the recipient should (at > least) be > >>> able to skip the nested multipart body part in the proper > "I don't > >>> understand this body part" way. All an option-tag would > do is allow > >>> the sender to not add a fallback. > >> > >> In that case we need some specific text saying that if the > receiver > >> does not support nested multiparts it MUST do-this-and-do-that. > >> > >> Because, as I said earlier, I don't think we will achieve what we > >> want by saying that one MUST be able to parse nested > multiparts. It > >> can be rather tricky to implement (depending on how the parser is > >> implemented, though), and since there aren't really any > use-cases out > >> there yet I am pretty sure some people will choose not to > implement > >> it (and saying that people are not compliant in that case will not > >> really help from an interop perspective). So, because of > that I think > >> it would be good not to mandate the support of nested > multiparts, but > >> to mandate appropriate behavior if not supported - just > like in any > >> other case when a MIME body contains an unsupported but > required content type. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Christer > >> > >> > >> > >>> 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 > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
