Re: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: Content-Type vs Info-Package [was RE: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages per INFO]

Dean Willis wrote:
> 
> On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:04 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> 
>>
>> Christer Holmberg wrote:
>>
>>> So, just to make sure I understand: you are talking about a case 
>>> where the INFO does contain a multipart message body, but only one of 
>>> the mimes contains an actual info-package (the other mime(s) contains 
>>> something else)?
>>
>> pretty much. And to distinguish those, you need more than C-T.
>> But I think as we have been discussing, if we only allow one info 
>> package per INFO, then the Info-Package header belongs in the message, 
>> not in the body part.
>>
> 
> So the error condition is you have two body parts of types allowed for 
> the INFO package, but only one of them is the "real" info, and the other 
> part is from some other extension.
> 
> If it hurts, don't do it?
> 
> Seriously, a Content-Disposition would sort this out.

Yes. We need a C-D.

It can be "render" if we want it to be. But I think that brings some 
baggage that we could do without. In particular, "render" is the default 
C-D for any C-T that isn't defined to have some other C-D as its default.

I am really now thinking that the info package type is really a 
"sub-disposition-type" - an extension to the disposition type namespace 
that is independently managed. And then we provide the means to 
negotiate use of those in INFO.

	Paul
_______________________________________________
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