Re: INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, November 28, 2008 11:28 PM
>
> P.S. Its a pity that we haven't anything better to do on a holiday
> weekend. :-)

What do you mean?  This is way better than work. :)


> Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>
> For actual info package bodies, the handling should be determined by the
>   definition of the info package, not by the content disposition. If we
> are identifying the body of the info package via cid, then the c-d of
> the info package should be by-reference as defined in the body handling
> draft.

Since any RFC defining piggy-backer bodies need to use CID, is there a reason info-packages have to as well?

Like is this ambiguous for either an info-package or a piggy-backer?:

----BEGIN----
INFO sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0
Call-ID: [email protected]
From: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=27285
To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=GR52RWG346-34
CSeq: 2 INFO
Via: SIP/2.0/UDP 192.168.1.1:5060;branch=z9hG4bK-6110000000000893
Max-Forwards: 70
Info-Package: turkey-shoot
Foobar-piggybacker: <cid:[email protected]>
Content-Length: [whatever]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;boundary="boundary1"

--boundary1
Content-Type: text/plain

Eat the turkey!
--boundary1
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: by-reference
Content-ID: <[email protected]>

Please don't eat me!
--boundary1--
----END----

_______________________________________________
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