Hi,
>>Now, as far as I know (please correct me if I am
wrong) Content-Length
>>is NOT a MIME header.
>
>Right, it isn't. It could be argued that SIP's
>Content-Length was taken from HTTP (RFC1945) rather than
>MIME. It could be argued HTTP took the idea from email
--
>Content-Length used to be common in email headers a
decade or
>two ago (but Content-Length didn't work too well for
email
>for a variety of reasons).
>RFC2076 (February 1997) lists it, and says it was not a
>standard email header at the time.
>
>>If so, I guess it shouldn't be used as a MIME header
(together with
>>Content-Type, Content-Transfer-Encoding etc)?
>
>RFC2045 does say:
>
> Any sort of field may be present in the header of an
entity,
> but only those fields whose names begin with
"content-"
> actually have any MIME-related meaning.
>
>but of course Content-Length doesn't have any meaning to
MIME
>(neither would Content-Crayon). But neither of those
headers
>do harm to a MIME parser, because a MIME parser ignores
>fields it doesn't understand.
>
>
>I guess you're saying SIP should have used something
like
>"Length:" instead of
"Content-Length:" to avoid collision
>with MIME's self-claimed ownership of all field names
that
>begin with "Content-"?
No no.
I am not talking about the usage of Content-Lenght (or any
other
Content- header) in the SIP part of the message. I was
referring to the
usage of Content-Length in the MIME part of the message
body.
Regards,
Christer
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://ww
w1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors cs.columbia.edu for questions on current
sip
Use sippingietf.org for new developments on the application of
sip
|
