Re: status of wg specifications

At 07:37 PM 5/15/02 +0900, Hiroyasu Sugano wrote:
>I would add one more issue on CPIM.
>This is the one I mentioned at Minneapolis meeting.
>
>There is an inconsistency between CPIM and CPIM-MSGFMT.
>
>In draft-ietf-impp-cpim-02.txt, section 2.3,
>
>      An INSTANT MESSAGE comprises a MIME
>      Type="message/cpim,profile=im" object, as defined in
>      XML/MIME[6] and MESSAGE/CPIM PROFILE FOR INSTANT
>      MESSAGING.
>
>But, there is no description about the "profile" parameter in the MSGFMT doc.
>Because I believe MSGFMT has passed WGLC, the CPIM doc should be
>changed.  Section 3.3 contains similar text for presence.

My recollection is that we agreed to go with different MIME content-types 
for different uses of the message/cpim format framework.  The -msgfmt- spec 
says:

[[
6. APPLICATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

    As defined, the 'Message/CPIM' content type uses a default namespace
    URI 'urn:ietf:params-cpim-headers:', and does not define any other
    implicit namespace prefixes.  Applications that have different
    requirements should define and register a different MIME media type,
    specify the required default namespace URI and define any implied
    namespace prefixes as part of the media type specification.
]]

So I think the reference in CPIM to "profile" is now incorrect.

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email protected]>



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]