Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: draft-olson-sip-content-indirect-mech-00

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:54:28 -0400

Sriram --

I think you're misunderstanding the text in RFC 2017 that you quoted.
Here's a simple demonstration you can use to help convince yourself
that Sean's proposal is consistent with RFC 2017:

How many "Content-Type" lines are in the RFC 2017 snippet you quoted?
Two. One (the actual message content type) specifies
message/external-body, and the other (which is actually in the
message body) specifies the content type of the external content.

How many "Content-Type" lines are in the example in Sean's document?
Two. One (the actual message content type) specifies
message/external-body, and the other (which is actually in the
message body) specifies the content type of the external content.

How many "Content-Type" lines are in your proposed example?
Three. The first specifies message/external-body, and
the third (which is actually in the message body) specifies
the content type of the external content. The second
specifies "text/plain" for no openly apparent reason,
since there is no text/plain content related to this
message in any way.

Can you see how your proposal is the inconsistent one?

/a

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www1.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