W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2012

RE: checking SDP errors in SessionDescription

From: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:06:09 +0000
To: Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) <tommyw@google.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B60F8F444AAC9C49A9EF0D12D05E0942216B7373@szxeml535-mbs.china.huawei.com>
I think the idea is to give the applications the ability to not use an invalid SDP with a PeerConnection.


From: Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) [mailto:tommyw@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 11:21 AM
To: Li Li
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: checking SDP errors in SessionDescription

But what would you use a SessionDescription object for if you don't have an PeerConnection?

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com<mailto:Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>> wrote:
When constructing a SessionDescription from a SDP string received from a peer, the SDP string may contain syntactic errors (according to RFC4566) as it may have been manipulated by the remote application.

I think the browser should catch these errors during the construction of SessionDescription object, through  error callback or exception. By detecting an invalid SDP early, the application can be more robust and efficient.

The current API can catch these errors in setRemoteDescrition() through its error callback. However, this requires a PeerConnection object.


Tommy Widenflycht, Senior Software Engineer
Google Sweden AB, Kungsbron 2, SE-11122 Stockholm, Sweden
Org. nr. 556656-6880
And yes, I have to include the above in every outgoing email according to EU law.
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 16:08:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC