Re: MIME encapsulation of multipart responses

[John Stracke <jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Doug Royer wrote:

> John Stracke wrote:
>  
>
> > Bruce_Kahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > In any case I think we all seem to agree that multipart support is
> > > necessary (if not implicitly mandated),
> > >      
> > No, we do not.  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.
> >    
>
> Nor did Bruce say it was mandated. There are implementations
> that use multipart - we can not just decide they have to break.
They use multipart for iMIP.  An iMIP message will never be presented 
directly to a CAP CS.  Instead, an MUA will accept the multipart, 
extract the text/calendar body part, and submit it to the CS via CAP.

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