Re: "SDP"

Silvia,

The preamble at  http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/  states -

"Obsoletes xxxx refers to other RFCs that this one replaces;
Obsoleted by xxxx refers to RFCs that have replaced this one."

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2327/  states that -

"Obsoleted by RFC 4566 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4566/>
Updated by RFC 3266 "
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3266/>

So 2327 has been replaced by 4566.

But if you look at  *http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2327.txt*  you do not see
that it has been 'replaced' by 4566.

/Barry Dingle



On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Picking up on this old thread: are we anywhere near moving from
> rfc3264 to rfc4566 for SDP yet?
>
> I'm asking because we've found some issue wrt order of lines and
> rfc4566 is more strict which Chrome does not seem to adhere to.
>
> For example, Chrome creates and expects the "t=" line right after the
> "s=" line and if you change the order to the one prescribed in rfc4566
> (i.e. move the "t=" line after the "b=" line), you get the following
> error:
> [6:6:1019/154128:ERROR:rtc_peer_connection_handler.cc(419)] Failed to
> parse SessionDescription. a=msid-semantic: WMS
> mINCZktUQbGayYwubbgUTOh8SknO7HDlnqKq Expect line: t=
>
> Is there a plan to move to the "newer" (2006) RFC?
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Sunyang (Eric) <eric.sun@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> > 3264+4566, and I think RFC 3264 may need to be revised to use 4566
> instead
> > of 2327.
> >
> > And I think all browser need to support that, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yang
> >
> > Huawei
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Matthew Kaufman [mailto:matthew.kaufman@skype.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:07 AM
> > To: public-webrtc@w3.org
> > Subject: "SDP"
> >
> >
> >
> > The W3C WEBRTC specification refers to “SDP” and has a bibliography entry
> > for “SDP”. This entry points to RFC3264 (“An Offer/Answer Model with the
> > Session Description Protocol (SDP)”, and not in fact to any of the RFCs
> that
> > describe SDP. RFC3264 itself points to RFC2327, which has been obsoleted
> by
> > RFC4566.
> >
> >
> >
> > When the specification says things like “sdp of type DOMString, nullable
> –
> > The string representation of the SDP” are we really trying to talk about
> the
> > subset of RFC2327 that is covered by RFC3264, or do we really mean the
> SDP
> > as described in RFC4566, or something else entirely?
> >
> >
> >
> > Matthew Kaufman
>
>