Re: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: Content-Type vs Info-Package [was RE: draft-ietf-sip-info-events-00: multiple packages per INFO]
Paul Kyzivat <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
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? Before I say more, I will first point out that discussion is irrelevant if we only intend to allow one info package per INFO. But MIME bodies are extensible with arbitrary headers. I don't recall if there is any requirement about standardizing them. > 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? Lets not get off in the weeds discussing this until and unless we decide to support multiple info packages per INFO. > 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. Could you please spell out precisely what your concern is? >> 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