W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2013

Re: "SDP"

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:44:33 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2ktzsvwY7gq9KGqP1Pf+h3xWmp2Z+dYm3077zyPLkVw5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sunyang (Eric)" <eric.sun@huawei.com>
Cc: Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
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
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 00:45:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:36 UTC