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

From: "Sean Olson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:34:24 -0700

Thanks, I'll make the Content-ID a MUST in the -01 version.
/sean

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Sriram Parameswar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 12:07 PM
	To: 'Adam Roach'; Sean Olson
	Cc: [email-masked]'
	Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: draft-olson-sip-content-indirect-mech-00

	Adam: 

	Thanks for the explanation its clear - sorry for the confusion. 

	Sean: 
	Last comment we probably need the Content-ID header in the
example: RFC 2046 "The encapsulated headers in ALL
"message/external-body" entities MUST include a Content-ID header field
to give a unique identifier by which to reference the data."

	Thanks, 

	Sriram 

	__________________________________________ 
	Sriram Parameswar              Phone: 972-685-8540 
	Interactive Multimedia Server (IMS) Fax: 972-684-3986 
	Nortel Networks, Richardson USA  Email:
[email-masked] 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Adam Roach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:54 PM 
	To: Parameswar, Sriram [NGC:B615:EXCH]; 'Sean Olson' 
	Cc: [email-masked] 
	Subject: RE: [Sip] RE: draft-olson-sip-content-indirect-mech-00 

	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