Subject: Binary transport (was RE: [Simple] MSRP Boundary header)

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 02:32:45 -0400

I think at least 8-bit transport absolutely, positively, must be supported.
I'm surprised no one picked up on Orit's comment.

To support the boundary mechanism, binary objects MUST be transmitted in
network byte order.  That would also ensure interoperability across
platforms.  Could this be normative text?

With 8-bit transport, the proposed boundary mechanism still works.  With
network byte order, the proposed mechanism works in all cases.

I would strongly suggest highlighting the transport of 8-bit objects in
places like Section 6.3.2.  We learned from SIP that when people don't see
binary bodies, they don't expect to see binary bodies.  Cullen had to write
an Informational draft just to let people know that binary is good...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orit Levin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:54 PM
> To: Cullen Jennings; Ben Campbell; Vijay Kishen Hampapur Parthasarathy
> Cc: Paul H Kyzivat; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Simple] MSRP Boundary header
> 
[snip]
> - Does the implicit assumption that all the data needs to be
> encoded/escaped (no binary data in MSRP) work for everybody?

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