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

Re: "SDP"

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:15:52 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2m0iXW+VZSmZut9_LMg4pvZYza6b1HUbKHTpEMRJFrumQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sunyang (Eric)" <eric.sun@huawei.com>, Matthew Kaufman <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
What are you trying to say? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4566/
says "proposed standard".
Are you suggesting we need to add RFC4566 to the list of references
for SDP rather than replace RFC3264?

Silvia.

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Barry Dingle <btdingle@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> Updated by RFC 3266 "
>
> So 2327 has been replaced by 4566.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
>>
>
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 01:16:41 UTC

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