Subject: Re: [Sip] So where are we at with WGLC of draft-ietf-sip-body-handling?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:24:49 -0500 (EST)

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>

   So, if nobody objects, I suggest we specify the following:

I agree with everything in this message, except that I think the
followig three statements should be removed:

   o the handling of a multipart/mixed is 'required' if its processing as a
   whole is required.

   o the handling of a multipart/alternative is 'required' if its
   processing as a whole is required.

   o the handling of a multipart/related is 'required' if its processing as
      a whole is required.

These statements are not quite correct when multiparts are nested
(I'll explain below), and the correct interpretation comes from
applying the stated rules to the multipart's parent part.  These
statements could be corrected by changing "if its processing as a
whole is required" to "if its processing as a whole is required for
processing the enclosing body part or message".

An example is:

	multipart/mixed;handling=required

	    multipart/mixed;handling=optional

	        multipart/mixed;handling=required

	            text/xml

In this case, the processing of the 3rd multipart is required in order
to process the 2nd multipart, but since the 2nd multipart is optional,
there is no assurrance the 3rd multipart will be processed.

Dale
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [email-masked] for questions on current sip
Use [email-masked] for new developments on the application of sip

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:44:53 -0500 (EST)

yes, the current I-D specifies the latter; what has been called "global"
   in the email threads. The idea was to be consistent with email. However,
   I agree with the conclusions of the email discussions. That is, using
   the "local" approach probably makes more sense in a SIP context.

I don't see that that change has been made in -04.  In particular (as
Rockson notes) section 7.2 still gives the "global" interpretation.

(My suggested amendments of 3 Nov still stand, of course.)

Dale

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:56:14 +0200

Hi Dale,

we are in agreement here. I also agree that rephrasing the text per your 
suggestion will make it clearer and more explicit.

> These

Therefore, I will make this change in the three sentences in the 
following revision of the draft.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:00:12 +0200

Hi Dale,

per my previous email, I will modify the text per your suggestions.

Thanks,

Gonzalo