Ted Hardie wrote:
bbiw.net
The SIP preference/capabilities work broadly re-uses the CONNEG framework.
ack.
This optimization treats a particular problem with "application" as a top-level
type in the SIP context. Though there are application types in 3297
(application/pdf),
using them in negotiation hits SIP in somewhat different ways. The question is
whether generalizing the subtype content negotiation needed there would be
useful for other content negotiation users.
At the risk of further showing that I haven't done enough homework, I'll
nonetheless charge forward with another basic question:
The draft seems to indicate that it's ok in some cases to indicate the ability
to handle content based only on a top-level MIME type label. While it
certainly can be ok to do that in some cases, it seems problematic to expect
that to work.
In other words, it seems less like the problem is adding the ability to
specify sub-types under application, than to stop relying only on top-level.
For example message/rfc822 vs. message/x400.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf