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

Hi,

>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

Dude, I agree with you :)
 
Regards,
 
Christer
 

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