Subject: Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:27:45 -0400

John wrote:
> No, we do not.

Weren't you arguing multipart/mixed vs multipart/related w/Doug just a few 
postings back??  They appeared to be that you agreed that mulitpart was in 
order, just you didnt necessarily agree of the subtype.  Was I wrong in 
reading _this_ thread so far??

>                The thread you cite was an related to iMIP, which 
> inherits MUA-based requirements from MIME.  It does *not* mean that 
> every iCalendar-based application must support multipart.

I did not mean to add iMIP to this discussion since its already baked and 
in the bag.  I was merely trying to show that we discussed the entire idea 
of multipart support a long time ago and we agreed then that it was 
useful/necessary.  The intent was/is to show we've already covered this so 
why are we covering it again?? 

Not every iCalendar application supports multipart (check CalConnect 
results yourself).  Due to this that means some apps do not easily work 
with other iCalendar apps unless extra steps are taken on someones part. 

Ill let the WG thrash over "do we want to have multipart in CAP" as long 
as they like since Ive alrady expressed my views on it. 

I will keep advocating that in CAP we must be much much more precise in 
specifying _how_ multipart is to be supported since CUAs already support 
multipart in iTIP you'd have to be foolish to regress it but you'd be wise 
to more precisely codify it that it was in iTIP.  (CAP is a 'superset' of 
iRIP which is a binding of iTIP so if you can do multipart in iTIP you can 
do it in the 'iRIP subset' of CAP...)

Bruce
===========================================================================
Bruce Kahn                                INet: 
[email-masked]
Messaging & Collaboration                 Phone: 978.399.6496
IBM Software Group                         FAX: and nothing but the FAX...
Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law...

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 12:29:27 -0400

[email-masked] wrote:

>  (CAP is a 'superset' of iRIP which is a binding of iTIP so if you can 
> do multipart in iTIP you can do it in the 'iRIP subset' of CAP...) 

You cannot do multipart in iTIP.  You can do it in a MIME message which 
contains an iTIP object, but an iTIP object is not itself a MIME 
message.  The same can be said for iCalendar in general; although an 
iCalendar object can be carried in a MIME message, it is not inherently 
a MIME object.  See RFC-2445:

   This memo is formatted as a registration for a MIME media type per
   [RFC 2048]. However, the format in this memo is equally applicable
   for use outside of a MIME message content type.

-- 
/=====================================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]            |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com          |
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own.           |
|=====================================================|
|"The Reality Check's in the mail." --L. Peter Deutsch|
\=====================================================/

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:27:56 -0400

Doug Royer wrote:

>John Stracke wrote:
>>You cannot do multipart in iTIP.
>>    
>>
>
>Where does it say that?
>
RFC-2446, Section 3:

   ITIP messages are "text/calendar" MIME entities that contain
   calendaring and scheduling information.

So an iTIP message cannot be a multipart/whatever containing a 
text/calendar; it *is* a text/calendar.

-- 
/===========================================\
|John Stracke      [email-masked]  |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com|
|Centiv            |My opinions are my own. |
|===========================================|
|If you're omniscient, how do you know?     |
\===========================================/

---

From: Doug Royer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 11:37:53 -0600

Where does it say that?