One of the tasks of the draft is to make support for at least some
subtypes of multipart (e.g. mixed) mandatory.
I hope this is not a suggestion to make dereferencing of external bodies
mandatory.
If the request is just to include some clarification of the use and
handling of external bodies in this draft then I guess that does sound
useful.
Paul
Eric Burger wrote:
Seems like a good idea. However, I would not go so far as to mandate
iterative evaluation. I would offer that the UA evaluates as needed.
On 7/20/07 3:58 AM, "Qian Sun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I suggest Content Indirection Mechanism defined in rfc4483 should also be
considered in this draft.
It is a little special, an example from rfc4483:
6.1. Single Content Indirection
INVITE sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0
Accept: message/external-body application/sdp
Content-Type: message/external-body;
ACCESS-TYPE=URL;
URL="http://www.example.net/party/06/2002/announcement";;
EXPIRATION="Sat, 20 Jun 2002 12:00:00 GMT";
size=231
Content-Length: 105
Content-Type: application/sdp
Content-Disposition: session
Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In addition, what happens to the INVITE request if the recipient can not get
the indirect content?
Nits: a letter "l" is missing in the title.
Internet-Draft Message Body Hand"l"ing in SIP May 2007
Cheers,
Qian
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:30 AM
To: Gonzalo Camarillo
Cc: IETF SIP List
Subject: Re: [Sip] comments on draft-camarillo-sip-body-handling-01
Just one comment in addition to what Gonzalo said:
Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
The use case described for multipart/alternative - new SDP mechanisms
- seems kind of bogus. We've decided not to pursue that. Do we have a
REAL use case for this?
AFAICT, we have decided not to pursue SDPng but we still need a
mechanism in order to be able to, at some point, migrate to new session
description formats. The current consensus, as I understand it, is that
multipart/alternative should not be used to provide alternative SDP
descriptions, but that it could be used to provide alternative session
descriptions written in different formats.
The other classic example, because it is just like email, is MESSAGE
with a multipart/alternative containing plain text and html.
Paul
_______________________________________________
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
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally
privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received
this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete
it.
_______________________________________________
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
