Re: Multiple body-parts in one INFO

Hadriel,

I would like to agree with this. My only reservation is that if the
generic solution requires that each document that defines usage of a
body part in SIP needs to specify something additional (e.g., CID in a
header field), then we would need to come back and update the
Info-Events draft/RFC.

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: 04 December 2008 06:34
> To: Paul Kyzivat
> Cc: SIP List; Holmberg; [email protected]; Dean Willis
> Subject: Re: [Sip] Multiple body-parts in one INFO
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Kyzivat [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 12:10 AM
> > I just want it to be clear under what circumstances you can 
> use multiple
> > body parts in a message, and how a recipient of a message containing
> > multiple parts figures out how to process it.
> 
> Right, so that has two clear aspects to it:
> 1) Where do we solve it.
> 2) How do we solve it.
> 
> I assert that every issue raised so far on this thread with 
> respect to multiple body parts has been equally applicable to 
> most if not all SIP message types.  No one has refuted that 
> assertion as far as I can tell.
> 
> I claim, therefore, that the answer to (1) is: in a separate 
> draft which applies to all messages.  Otherwise we run the 
> risk that (a) we don't solve it the same way, and (b) we 
> delay this draft, and (c) we create a case where someone 
> fixes their handling for INFO multi-part bodies but not other 
> message types because they only implemented this draft, and 
> we end up with split UA personality disorder. :)
> 
> 
> > Just in the thread we have already heard a explanation of 
> doing it based
> > solely on C-T, which is really wrong. So its obviously not 
> clear now.
> 
> That is about aspect (2).  I agree with you completely that 
> C-T is not the right answer, but I don't see what it has to 
> do with this draft.  We shouldn't be defining a solution to 
> the problem for *INFO*.  We should be updating INFO to fix 
> what's broken in it now, and defining a solution for all 
> messages in a separate draft (presumably the body-handling draft).
> 
> -hadriel
> _______________________________________________
> 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