Re: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: Content-Type vs Info-Package [was RE: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages per INFO]
Jeroen van Bemmel <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Christer, Like I wrote before: adding the INFO package as a parameter to Content-Type solves all this. I don't think C-D is the right header, because the "disposition" would depend on the semantics of the event package. We simply need an additional qualifier to disambiguate the interpretation of the body Regards, Jeroen Christer Holmberg wrote: > Hi, > > >>> 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. >> > > I don't think that defining Info-Package as a mime header would even be within the scope of the SIP WG, would it? > > My assumption has been that the I-P header is in the SIP message part, and that causes the problem: in the case of multipart, how to associate the correct mime with the I-P header? I still think making assumptions on C-D is very dangerous, considering the very little experience we have of the C-D header in the first place. > > >> I'll revise your example a bit: >> >> INFO sip:[email protected] >> To:... >> From:... >> Some-Header: CID:abcdefg >> Info-Package: foo >> Content-Type:multipart/mixed >> Content-Length:... >> >> --boundary >> Content-Type: application/foo-data >> Content-Disposition: package;handling=required >> >> foo data >> --boundary >> Content-ID: abcdefg >> Content-Type: application/some-header-data >> Content-Disposition: by-reference;handling=optional >> >> some other (non-info package) data >> --boundary-- >> >> In the above I have used C-D of "package" to identify the part that >> contains the info package. That is yet to be determined, but I think it >> needs to be well defined, even if it is "render". >> > > Again, I don't think using C-D for the "association" is a good idea. > > > >> A more straightforward case would be: >> >> INFO sip:[email protected] >> To:... >> From:... >> Info-Package: foo >> Content-Type: application/foo-data >> Content-Disposition: package;handling=required >> Content-Length:10 >> >> foo data >> > > ...assuming that we don't allow multipart in INFOs, yes. > > Regards, > > Christer > > _______________________________________________ > 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