| Absolutely. Here is the deal:
;handling is a parameter that tells the UAS that is MUST (or MAY) understand the body part in its processing of the SIP message. "Understand" usually means "can process" the body part, but that is an implementation issue.
Content-Disposition is a parameter that tells the UAS what to do with the body part.
Now, looking at your question, Content-Disposition is probably not what you want, either. You say, "to signal a particular action which the sender requests from the recipient". That implies signaling. Content-Disposition is not signaling. Content-Disposition is a hint to the UAS as to what it should do with the body. If you want to signal an action at the UAS, then you more likely want one of (new) INFO packages, PUBLISH/SUBSCRIBE, or a new SIP header.
What precisely is the use case behind your request?
On Sep 19, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Sedlacek Ivo wrote: Just to be absolutely sure - do you mean that it is more appropriate to create a new disposition-type of the Content-Disposition header (rather than creating new "handling" parameter values)? Thanks.
Kind regards
Ivo Sedlacek
Siemens
PSE CZ TMM MMA8
phone: +420 5 3877 6532
email: ivo.sedlacek.ext at nsn.com, ivo.sedlacek at siemens.com
Mailcode: tL3PbjBL
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Paul Kyzivat [mailto:pkyzivat at cisco.com]
Sent: 19. září 2008 14:08
To: Sedlacek Ivo
Cc: sip at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Sip] [sip] extensions of "handling" parameter of Content-Disposition header
I can't think why you would want to have added values for the handling
parameter. IMO what you want to do would be better served by values of
the Content-Disposition itself.
Thanks,
Paul
Sedlacek Ivo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> can anyone please give me an expert opinion on possible extensions of
> "handling" parameter defined in RFC3204/RFC3459?
>
> Is it appropriate to extend and use the "handling" parameter of
> Content-Disposition header of a MIME body inserted in a SIP request to
> signal a particular action which the sender requests from the recipient?
>
> For example - if the "handling" parameter contained value "XYZ", the SIP
> request recipient would do a special action ActionXYZ using the MIME
> body. If the MIME body was included in the SIP request without the
> "handling" parameter, the recipient would NOT do the special action XYZ
> and instead would just store or render the MIME body.
>
> AFAIK, RFC3204 defines parameter "handling" of Content-Disposition
> header of a MIME body with two defined parameter values "required" and
> "optional" and allows for possible future extensions. RFC3204 also
> states "The handling parameter, handling-parm, describes how the UAS
> should react if it receives a message body whose content type or
> disposition type it does not understand". RFC3459 says "The protocol
> described here is identical in functionality to RFC 3204 with respect to
> SIP.".
>
> Kind regards
>
> *Ivo Sedlacek*
> Siemens
> PSE CZ TMM MMA8
> phone: +420 5 3877 6532 <tel:+420543106532>
> email: ivo.sedlacek.ext at nsn.com <mailto:ivo.sedlacek.ext at nsn.com>,
> ivo.sedlacek at siemens.com <mailto:ivo.sedlacek at siemens.com>
>
> Mailcode: tL3PbjBL
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip> This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
> Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
> Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors at cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping at ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip |