Since this document attempts to update the MIME content-disposition field,
Actually it doesn't do that. That was already done in RFC 3204. All this
document does is to try and insure that definition is consistent across
multiple applications of content-disposition.
Sigh. IMHO it's a Bad Idea to try to extend multiple protocols with
different semantics and use cases using something that looks like the
same mechanism. Content-disposition was designed for email, not SIP.
Trying to conflate the two just invites confusion. I suppose RFC 3204
is really to blame for this, but I don't think it's a good idea to
try to propagate that error.
I think this very much depends on the mechanism and protocols involved.
Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes not. I definitely don't think it
should be ruled out.
In this particular case we already have content-disposition in use in both
places. Given this I think there are greater risks with trying to maintain
separate but overlapping parameters attached to the same basic mechanism than
there are with trying to cleanly define a single parameter that spans
both.
...
That's why we have IETF last calls. The document title clearly indicates
that
it is a general MIME mechanism. Frankly, if you want to be upset about
something, be upset about RFC 3204, where neither the title nor the abstract
indicate that a parameter has been added to content-disposition.
RFC 3204 definitely does upset me more; I just wasn't aware of it until
reading this document.
Actually the thing that bugs me the most (so far) is the reuse of
Content-disposition in a SIP environment, because the entire point of
content-disposition was to deal with the unique properties of email where
there's no good feedback loop between sender and recipient.
It's not the fault of this document that 3204 reused content-disposition,
but this document seems likely to increase the confusion.
IMO not if it is done right.
as I said in another message, I'm working on detailed comments.
sometimes I find that I have fewer complaints once I'm done
making a detailed pass over the document than I did on the first
reading. (sometimes not).
I look forward to seeing your comments.
Ned