Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses

[Doug Royer <Doug@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>....
> 
> Look at the issues we have now in iMIP w/multipart support.  Some CUAs
> don't support it at all (ie: no ATTACHments, etc)  Some CUAs take one
> approach that may be contrary to the multipart semantics.  Some CUAs
> take a 'hybrid' approach to multipart in order to be 'richer' and to
> support workflow w/the other CUAs.  Its a big hodgepodge that makes
> interop testing less that seamless.  As a big user of C&S I really
> like seamless.  Maybe its just me and most users want to have lots of
> limitations or hoops to jump thru....  Do we want to go thru this
> exact same morass with CAP as CAP clients start to develop??

We went through this debate before. (Yes with iMIP, because
iMIP was the only transport). We do not have to mandate that
all CUAs and CSs ->generate<- multipart.

Currently we allow a status reply to indicate that a CS can
not support recurrence rules. Do we want to add one that
says - sorry, I threw away your attachments?

begin:vcard 
n:Royer;Doug
tel;pager:pager@xxxxxxxxx
tel;cell:208-520-4044
tel;fax:866-594-8574
tel;work:866-594-8574
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://Royer.com/People/Doug
org:http://INET-Consulting.com
adr:;;1795 W. Broadway #266;Idaho Falls;Idaho;83402;U.S.A.
version:2.1
email;internet:Doug@xxxxxxxxx
title:Chief Executive Manager
x-mozilla-cpt:;12704
fn:Doug Royer
end:vcard