Dean Willis wrote:
On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
Christer Holmberg wrote:
So, just to make sure I understand: you are talking about a case
where the INFO does contain a multipart message body, but only one of
the mimes contains an actual info-package (the other mime(s) contains
something else)?
pretty much. And to distinguish those, you need more than C-T.
But I think as we have been discussing, if we only allow one info
package per INFO, then the Info-Package header belongs in the message,
not in the body part.
So the error condition is you have two body parts of types allowed for
the INFO package, but only one of them is the "real" info, and the other
part is from some other extension.
If it hurts, don't do it?
Seriously, a Content-Disposition would sort this out.
Yes. We need a C-D.
It can be "render" if we want it to be. But I think that brings some
baggage that we could do without. In particular, "render" is the default
C-D for any C-T that isn't defined to have some other C-D as its default.
I am really now thinking that the info package type is really a
"sub-disposition-type" - an extension to the disposition type namespace
that is independently managed. And then we provide the means to
negotiate use of those in INFO.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.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
