Well, at the moment, what I am trying to do is get some understanding of what we should scope as valid SIP work.
We need to be able to understand why something that is clearly a generic problem for specification of nested MIME bodies merits a SIP specific solution. So: - is a generic solution already documented elsewhere? - if a generic solution is not documented elsewhere, should one be documented, rather than a specific SIP solution? Regards Keith > -----Original Message----- > From: Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:52 AM > To: DRAGE, Keith (Keith); Gonzalo Camarillo (JO/LMF); Paul Kyzivat > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Sip] MIME: Nested bodies with option-tag? > > > Hi Keith, > > >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? > > I am very sure that I have seen text related to the support > of nested multiparts, and what nodes are expected to support, > somewhere, but I yet have not found it. > > Regards, > > Christer > > > > > > 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
