From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So, if nobody objects, I suggest we specify the following:
I agree with everything in this message, except that I think the
followig three statements should be removed:
o the handling of a multipart/mixed is 'required' if its processing as a
whole is required.
o the handling of a multipart/alternative is 'required' if its
processing as a whole is required.
o the handling of a multipart/related is 'required' if its processing as
a whole is required.
These statements are not quite correct when multiparts are nested
(I'll explain below), and the correct interpretation comes from
applying the stated rules to the multipart's parent part. These
statements could be corrected by changing "if its processing as a
whole is required" to "if its processing as a whole is required for
processing the enclosing body part or message".
An example is:
multipart/mixed;handling=required
multipart/mixed;handling=optional
multipart/mixed;handling=required
text/xml
In this case, the processing of the 3rd multipart is required in order
to process the 2nd multipart, but since the 2nd multipart is optional,
there is no assurrance the 3rd multipart will be processed.
Dale
_______________________________________________
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
