Subject: [BEEPwg] Minimal presence of MIME headers in message payload

From: "Steven E. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 16:59:45 -0700

Per RFC 3080 Section 2.2, MIME headers may be used to describe message
payload content:

,----
| A message is structured according to the rules of MIME.  Accordingly,
| each message may begin with "entity-headers" (c.f., MIME's Section 3
| [1]).  If none, or only some, of the "entity-headers" are present:
`----

In the case where /no/ headers are present, is there just a spare CRLF
pair at the beginning of the payload after the BEEP header? That is,
would the following message be valid?

,----
| MSG 0 1 . 0 5
| 
| xxxEND
`----

Or could one send the same content without the spare CRLF pair?

,----
| MSG 0 1 . 0 3
| xxxEND
`----

With the latter, there would be no way to know where the MIME headers
end (given that they never began), so the former example seems more
likely to be the only valid choice. However, this base case with no
headers is hard to resolve from the MIME ABNF, nor are there any
similar header-less examples shown in RFC 3080 or 3081. Clarification
would be appreciated.

-- 
Steven E. Harris

_______________________________________________
BEEPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/mailman/listinfo/beepwg

---

From: "Steven E. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 08:52:59 -0700

"Steven E. Harris" <[email-masked]> writes:

> In the case where /no/ headers are present, is there just a spare
> CRLF pair at the beginning of the payload after the BEEP header?

I found a message from this mailing list in August 2000¹ that shows a
more detailed ABNF indicating the payload content requires at least
one CRLF pair:

  mime       = <MIME Content {entity-headers} from RFC 2045>
  payload    = [mime] CR LF *OCTET

I have not yet found a follow-up message arguing against this
definition, but it apparently did not make it into RFC 3080.

Footnotes: 
¹ [BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions
  Marshall Rose
  http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/beepwg/2000-August/000823.html

-- 
Steven E. Harris

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:35:07 -0700

> pair at the beginning of the payload after the BEEP header?

yes.

> That is,

yes.

> Or could one send the same content without the spare CRLF pair?

no, for the reason you list.

/mtr

---

From: "Steven E. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 09:46:24 -0700

> definition, but it apparently did not make it into RFC 3080.

Here are a couple of more messages supporting the proposed
interpretation:

  [BXXPwg] MIME header is gone
  Marshall T. Rose
  http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/beepwg/2000-December/001032.html

  Wolfgang Hoschek
  http://drakken.dbc.mtview.ca.us/pipermail/beepwg/2000-December/001033.html

-- 
Steven E. Harris