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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf