Re: [gupnp] UPNP compliance to M-SEARCH responses

["Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" <zeenix gmail com>]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Stephen Depooter <stephend xandros com> wrote:
>
> The UPNP device architecture specifies that the M-SEARCH responses MUST not be
> sent to malformed M-SEARCH requests.
>
> Specifically,
> "If there is an error with the search request (such as an invalid field value
> in the MAN header field, a missing MX header field, or
> other malformed content), the device MUST silently discard and ignore the
> search request; sending of error responses is
> PROHIBITED due to the possibility of packet storms if many devices send an
> error response to the same request."
>
>
> Would patches that mandate these requirements be acceptable? or would that
> break any DLNA compliance?

  No, I seriously doubt so. So please do provide a patch for this.

 > My proposal would add a bunch of extra sanity checking and break the "liberal
> in what we accept, strict in what we send out" principal, however if anyone
> else looks for UPNP certification using gssdp, they will also need these
> changes.    In addition, the proposed changes would remove the gssdp ability
> to fill in a default value for the MX header if it is missing.

 Although UPnP certification isn't as popular in the market as DLNA,
it wouldn't harm to be compliant to both if possible. :)

> In addition, since a passed UPNP certification appears to be a requirement for
> the first step of DLNA certification, I suspect that this will be necessary
> for DLNA as well.

  Although your premise is wrong, your conclusion might be very much correct. :)

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
FSF member#5124
--
To unsubscribe send a mail to gupnp+unsubscribe\@o-hand.com