On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:20:28 +0100
> From: Colin Perkins <csp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID: <c8c3d491c54371c30af777f7ceb38dfb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> | RFC 3555 allows media types to be defined for transport only via RTP.
> | The majority of these registrations are under the audio and video
> | top-level types, with a small number being under text. Is your
> | objection to any media type being defined only for transport via RTP,
> | or to text media types being defined only for transport via RTP?
>
> Not to either of those being attempted, but to the expectation that the
> "only via RTP" will, or can, ever be enforced.
What that means is that the specifications only supply instructions
about how to format and transmit the data via RTP, not any other
method. Therefore...
> That is, to your earlier statement ...
>
> Sure, but if the display agent is unaware of the restrictions, it won't
> ever be able to receive the media data.
>
> You'd need to be able to show me how that can possibly be true, when I
> can trivially easily send e-mail with text/t140 in the Content-Type header.
When you set out to do that, how are you going to figure out what some
text/t140 content should be? Are you saying that you would use that
Content-Type but just put US-ASCII into the body? You could also use
Content-Type=audio/basic and put US-ASCII into the body, but it would
probably not be very useful.
-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf