Subject: RE: [Simple] Comments on message-sessions-02

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:32:56 -0600

[email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] writes:

> text/plain does not tell you there is a file attached. I 
> believe it has its own mime type.

Errmm... no. The mime type doesn't indicate anything about whether
the content is supposed to be rendered to the user or saved to a
file. What you're thinking of is Content-Disposition.

  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2183.txt

So, if you wanted to hint that a text/plain payload should be saved
instead of rendered, I would submit that adding a Content-Disposition
header to MSRP would achieve the effect you want.

/a

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:46:27 -0600

> header to MSRP would achieve the effect you want.

Use of content-disposition is interesting, for the reason you mention, 
that is to suggest how to render a particular message. I am certainly 
open to allowing it in an MSRP message.

But to head off any proposal of saying we should use this to label the 
purpose of an entire _session, I think if we were going to go so far as 
to carry content-disposition in the SDP, we could come up with something 
both syntactically simpler and better fitting the semantic.

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:46:27 -0600

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:14:47 +0200

ext Ben Campbell wrote:

>>> text/plain does not tell you there is a file attached. I believe it 
>>> has its own mime type.
>>
>>
>>

These are somewhat orthogonal aspects of a message session. It is 
probably useful to label a specific session as e.g., file-transfer, as 
well as set some other properties like whether it is uni- or bidirectional.

It is another thing to state the disposition of a message. Although in a 
file transfer session, all messages would likely have the same 
disposition (like "attachment"), it would still be useful to list other 
things like filename per each message.

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:14:47 +0200

Cheers,
Aki

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:44:08 -0500

While I can see establishing a separate session when there is a need to 
do a file transfer, in order to keep it from conflicting with 
conversation, I don't imagine restricting it to a single file. For 
instance, if there are many files to be transferred, it is probably 
better to pipeline them thru one session than to create a single session 
for them all.

So, when trying to distinguish them in SDP, I think the distinction may 
only be between "interactive" and "batch" or something like that.

Content-Disposition does seem about right for indicating when something 
is a file and what it is called. But do we really need to add 
Content-Disposition to MSRP for that? Isn't it sufficient to wrap the 
thing as a part in a multipart in order to get a Content-Disposition 
mime header for the text/plain? Or so you want to do what sip has done, 
and permit all the mime headers in the outer message?

	Paul

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:44:08 -0500

Paul