Subject: Re: SDP (s=,t=) fields and PINT

From: [email-masked] (Igor Faynberg)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:25:04 -0400

>But if an SDP parser is following strictly the roules, it might crash
>because of that.
>t. Bernie

I hope there is no parser out there, which is DESIGNED to crash, whether 
strictly following the rules or not. How about rejecting a message or at
least logging an error and going on with life after that?

Igor Faynberg

---------
This message came from the IETF PINT Working Group Mailing List.

---

From: Bernie Höneisen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:15:41 +0300 (EET DST)

> least logging an error and going on with life after that?

With crash I meant also this. Of course such an error can easily be
caught, using error recovery in the parser or similar tools.
But this is not really the problem I was refering to...

The problem that might occur is, if the message is rejected (or the
parser crashes or whatever..:-)), the session can't be initated.
IF the parser is strictly following RFC 2327, it rejects all the PINT
messages, which have no "Session name" ('s='-field in SDP),
as it is missing in the examples of the current PINT Internet Draft.

Or is there somewhere something specified which would allow the omission
of the 's=' (and 't=') field and which I don't know about...?

t. Bernie

---------