Hadriel, I would like to agree with this. My only reservation is that if the generic solution requires that each document that defines usage of a body part in SIP needs to specify something additional (e.g., CID in a header field), then we would need to come back and update the Info-Events draft/RFC.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan > Sent: 04 December 2008 06:34 > To: Paul Kyzivat > Cc: SIP List; Holmberg; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dean Willis > Subject: Re: [Sip] Multiple body-parts in one INFO > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:10 AM > > I just want it to be clear under what circumstances you can > use multiple > > body parts in a message, and how a recipient of a message containing > > multiple parts figures out how to process it. > > Right, so that has two clear aspects to it: > 1) Where do we solve it. > 2) How do we solve it. > > I assert that every issue raised so far on this thread with > respect to multiple body parts has been equally applicable to > most if not all SIP message types. No one has refuted that > assertion as far as I can tell. > > I claim, therefore, that the answer to (1) is: in a separate > draft which applies to all messages. Otherwise we run the > risk that (a) we don't solve it the same way, and (b) we > delay this draft, and (c) we create a case where someone > fixes their handling for INFO multi-part bodies but not other > message types because they only implemented this draft, and > we end up with split UA personality disorder. :) > > > > Just in the thread we have already heard a explanation of > doing it based > > solely on C-T, which is really wrong. So its obviously not > clear now. > > That is about aspect (2). I agree with you completely that > C-T is not the right answer, but I don't see what it has to > do with this draft. We shouldn't be defining a solution to > the problem for *INFO*. We should be updating INFO to fix > what's broken in it now, and defining a solution for all > messages in a separate draft (presumably the body-handling draft). > > -hadriel > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
