Re: INFO Framework - one pakage per INFO
Dean Willis <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.sip |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Dec 10, 2008, at 12:42 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dean Willis [mailto:[email protected]] >>> ... >> >> Define "malformed document error". Do you mean garbled MIME, or a >> body >> that extracts for MIME but isn't valid for its content-type? Or do >> you >> mean a body that is valid for it's content-type, but subject to >> higher- >> level evaluation that it fails (for example, it's valid-looking XML, >> but it fails the schema verification). > > Yes, all of the above. It fails formatting syntax rules, not > semantics. (And schema validation I think of as formatting rules) > If it's gzip and it doesn't decompress, for example. > I'm worried that people are going to take this as evidence that the SIP Stack SHOULD go to great lengths to validate content. For example, are we going to require every SIP UA have HTTP so that it can retrieve XML schemae, and an XML validtory to check body parts with, and then validate every XML body part before handing it ti the application? What response code should SIP send if a body part un-MIMEs ok, but the SIP UA can't find the schema needed to validate the body? What if some application data used invalid XML in his body? I'd really rather not have this as protocol considerations for SIP. The SIP stack has to be able to pull the content out of its (possibly multipart) MIME wrapper. If the MIME wrapping is good and there's an application to hand the payload off to, I think SIP should be happy to send a 200 OK. -- Dean _______________________________________________ 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