I was the one who originally raised this issue. I don't have a strong
opinion on which way it should go, but I think what Gonzalo wrote
(SHOULD NOT) is about right. The issue is that if there can be one level
of gratuitous nesting, then what about two, or a hundred levels of
gratuitous nesting?
I'm inclined to think that people SHOULDN'T do it, but that a recipient
should deal with it, at least within reason. (Perhaps its ok not to
support 100 levels of nesting.)
Paul
Christer Holmberg (JO/LMF) wrote:
Hi,
Chapter 3.2 of Gonzalo's draft says:
"UAs should avoid unnecessarily nesting body parts. Therefore, UAs
SHOULD NOT use a 'multipart' body when there is only one body part."
However, chapter 5.1.1 of RFC2046 says:
"NOTE: Experience has shown that a "multipart" media type with a
single body part is useful for sending non-text media types."
So, I think we need to add some words saying that it can be useful in
some cases.
For example, I THINK I have seen INFO requests with encapsulated ISUP
messages inside a MIME body, eventhough the message doesn't contain any
other body types.
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
