[Bug 749596] rtsp-over-http authentication failure

[GStreamer (GNOME Bugzilla)]

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=749596

Evan Callaway <evan.callaway at ipconfigure.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |evan.callaway at ipconfigure.c
                   |                            |om

--- Comment #1 from Evan Callaway <evan.callaway at ipconfigure.com> ---
I've reproduced this issue and delved into it a bit and it seems that we do not
handle authentication during tunneling setup appropriately.  When I add the
appropriate Authorization header to the request all goes well, but this may
require some slight reworking of things to get the response back from
setup_tunneling to know what kinds of authentication are supported.

Currently, rtspsrc calls gst_connection_connect on rtspconnection which in turn
calls setup_tunneling if required.  The response to the request in setup
tunneling is currently only local in scope, but all of our framework for
setting up authentication is in rtspsrc and relies on being able to parse the
response.

Here are two viable approaches:

1) Create variations of gst_connection_connect and setup_tunneling that are
passed a response pointer in addition to the existing arguments so that a
caller can leverage the response to setup authentication and retry the
connection.  For compatibility with other code using gst_connection_connect, we
can make gst_connection_connect into a wrapper method which maintains the
existing function prototype and simply passes the arguments through with an
added response pointer to the new method.

2) From rtspsrc, send a dummy request prior to attempting a connection to see
if setup_tunneling will require authentication and add it based upon the
response to the dummy request as necessary.  From there proceed with connecting
as normal.  This does have the benefit of keeping all changes local to rtspsrc.

I am unsure what approach would be preferred.  Please advise as to what
strategy you would like to see implemented to resolve this and I would be happy
to supply a patch.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.