Re: Estoterica regarding multipart MIME (was Re: [MMUSIC] File transfer issue 49: multipart/mixed or multipart/related)

[Adam Roach <adam at nostrum.com>]

Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> OK Adam. I can't find anything to argue with in your response.
>
> Practically speaking, I suspect that there are more implementations of 
> mixed than parallel out there. If parallel isn't understood, then it 
> is supposed to be processed as mixed, so the mixed implementations out 
> there should deal with it. (Will be interesting to see what actually 
> happens.)
>
> I guess the bottom line is what (if anything) we should *recommend* 
> for use in the common cases such as SDP + QSIG.
I still contend that the technically correct answer would be 
multipart/parallel -- however, we did this wrong in RFC 3398 (I'm one of 
the guilty parties), and I don't think there's any way of getting that 
particular cat back into this particular bag.

Future extensions would do well to use mixed only if ordering is 
important, and parallel otherwise -- but it can only *hurt* 
interoperability to try to change what's specified for the stuff that's 
already published, implemented and deployed.

/a

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic