> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 11:28 PM > > P.S. Its a pity that we haven't anything better to do on a holiday > weekend. :-)
What do you mean? This is way better than work. :) > Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > For actual info package bodies, the handling should be determined by the > definition of the info package, not by the content disposition. If we > are identifying the body of the info package via cid, then the c-d of > the info package should be by-reference as defined in the body handling > draft. Since any RFC defining piggy-backer bodies need to use CID, is there a reason info-packages have to as well? Like is this ambiguous for either an info-package or a piggy-backer?: ----BEGIN---- INFO sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SIP/2.0 Call-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=27285 To: <sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;tag=GR52RWG346-34 CSeq: 2 INFO Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.1:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-6110000000000893 Max-Forwards: 70 Info-Package: turkey-shoot Foobar-piggybacker: <cid:[email protected]> Content-Length: [whatever] Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1" --boundary1 Content-Type: text/plain Eat the turkey! --boundary1 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: by-reference Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please don't eat me! --boundary1-- ----END---- _______________________________________________ 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
