>Yes - if SDP contradicts itself, then it is SDP that needs fixing.
It's not contradictory; merely misleading. Neither e= nor p= are
mandatory, strictly speaking. In other words: you can have valid
SDP without an e= line. You can have valid SDP without a p= line.
You cannot, strictly speaking, have valid SDP without a e= and
without a p= line.
>As a general point, about the need for parsers to be forgiving - there is an
>argument that 'over-aggressive' parsers are useful because
>1) they flag problems with a standard or its implementation(s)
For the time being, this is true. However, care should be taken
to change the code to be more forgiving before any actual
products are launched, for the sake of interoperability.
>2) they prevent unpredictable and potentially serious operational problems
>from arising in a complex interworking environment.
I'm not sure I agree. Can you give an example of the concern you
beleive you're addressing?
--
Adam Roach, Ericsson Inc. | Ph: +1 972 583 7594 | 1010 E. Arapaho, MS L-04
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Fax: +1 972 669 0154 | Richardson, TX 75081 USA
