Hi, >>Now, as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong) Content-Length
>>is NOT a MIME header. > >Right, it isn't. It could be argued that SIP's >Content-Length was taken from HTTP (RFC1945) rather than >MIME. It could be argued HTTP took the idea from email -- >Content-Length used to be common in email headers a decade or >two ago (but Content-Length didn't work too well for email >for a variety of reasons). >RFC2076 (February 1997) lists it, and says it was not a >standard email header at the time. > >>If so, I guess it shouldn't be used as a MIME header (together with >>Content-Type, Content-Transfer-Encoding etc)? > >RFC2045 does say: > > Any sort of field may be present in the header of an entity, > but only those fields whose names begin with "content-" > actually have any MIME-related meaning. > >but of course Content-Length doesn't have any meaning to MIME >(neither would Content-Crayon). But neither of those headers >do harm to a MIME parser, because a MIME parser ignores >fields it doesn't understand. > > >I guess you're saying SIP should have used something like >"Length:" instead of "Content-Length:" to avoid collision >with MIME's self-claimed ownership of all field names that >begin with "Content-"? No no. I am not talking about the usage of Content-Lenght (or any other Content- header) in the SIP part of the message. I was referring to the usage of Content-Length in the MIME part of the message body. 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
