Thanks for sending out in advance. Maybe we can get into the discussion
of the slides now, before the meeting.
Regarding references to body parts:
IMO it is a *bad* idea to make the decision about processing of a body
part "on its own" dependent on whether the node doing so has detected a
reference to that body part or not.
For one thing, that requires a multi-pass parsing mechanism to check for
references before deciding what processing to do on a particular part.
For another, it requires that the recipient understand every reference.
For instance, the sender may have included an extension header that
contains a reference to a body part. If the extension isn't understood,
then the body part should not be processed. But if the recipient doesn't
understand the extension then it won't recognize the reference either,
and so will attempt to process the body part as one without references.
The only good solution I see to this is to partition the
Content-Disposition and/or Content-Type values whose processing is
dependent on reference from those whose processing is not dependent on a
reference. For instance, we could simply define a new
Content-Disposition of "by-reference".
Then a normal sequence of processing would be to first process all the
body parts according to their type and disposition alone. Any with
disposition "by-reference" would be set aside. Then, when processing
headers, if a header with a reference is encountered the appropriate
processing could be applied to the set aside body part. References
within other body parts would be a little more complex, but you get the
idea.
This would not prevent reference to body parts with other dispositions.
It just means that those body parts would also be processed according to
their type and disposition, in addition to any processing they might get
according to their reference. The "by-reference" disposition is just a
defintion that gets no implicit processing.
An advantage of this approach is that by-reference body parts don't need
to be parsed unless the reference is processed and the action required
in processing the reference requires the node to parse the referenced
body. (Interaction with handling=required in this case is TBD.) Even a
multipart with disposition of by-reference might not need to be parsed.
Regarding Content-Disposition in multiparts:
While it seems "wrong" to me, I can live with using "render" as the
normal disposition for multipart, *if* we can do a careful job of
defining what "render" actually means for SIP. Used this way it clearly
doesn't always mean to display the content to a user.
Thanks,
Paul
Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
Folks,
here you have the slides I have put together for the body (MIME)
handling presentation on Monday:
http://users.piuha.net/gonzalo/temp/ietf69-sip-camarillo-body-handling.ppt
These slides relate to this draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-camarillo-sip-body-handling-01.txt
The slides discuss all the open issues that have been brought up in the
list in the last months.
Comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Gonzalo
_______________________________________________
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
