Once we get down to a decision of supporting nested versus not supporting nesting, presumably we are then entirely in the realm of the multipart coding itself.
Could I ask someone to elaborate on what generic requirements already exist within multipart/mime in this respect, before we start looking at defining SIP specific rules or indications? Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:47 PM > To: Gonzalo Camarillo (JO/LMF); Paul Kyzivat > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip] MIME: Nested bodies with option-tag? > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
