> -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Willis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:20 AM > > On Dec 9, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > The only questions, really, are: > > 1) Do we need to define in the base INFO doc how to handle app-layer > > failures using separate upstream INFO requests. For example, do we > > need to define how malformed document errors are reported in > > upstream INFO messages. I don't think we do, because I think it's > > only a subset of packages that would ever care, and they'd probably > > need their own semantics and syntax for what they care about and > > what it means to them. So there's no need to pollute the base doc > > with that. > > > > Define "malformed document error". Do you mean garbled MIME, or a body > that extracts for MIME but isn't valid for its content-type? Or do you > mean a body that is valid for it's content-type, but subject to higher- > level evaluation that it fails (for example, it's valid-looking XML, > but it fails the schema verification).
Yes, all of the above. It fails formatting syntax rules, not semantics. (And schema validation I think of as formatting rules) If it's gzip and it doesn't decompress, for example. I don't think we need to define a specific upstream INFO request mechanism to indicate such a failure. If a package cares about such things, it can define one, since it will probably need other real app-layer error indications anyway. For example KPML went to the trouble of doing that. Most wouldn't care, I think. -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
