<!doctype html>
<meta charset=utf-8>
<title>RTCPeerConnection.prototype.createOffer</title>
<script src="/resources/testharness.js"></script>
<script src="/resources/testharnessreport.js"></script>
<script src="../RTCPeerConnection-helper.js"></script>
<script>
  'use strict';

  // Tests for the construction of initial offers according to
  // draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-24 section 5.2.1
  promise_test(async t => {
    const pc = new RTCPeerConnection();
    const offer = await generateVideoReceiveOnlyOffer(pc);
    let offer_lines = offer.sdp.split('\r\n');
    // The first 3 lines are dictated by JSEP.
    assert_equals(offer_lines[0], "v=0");
    assert_equals(offer_lines[1].slice(0, 2), "o=");

    assert_regexp_match(offer_lines[1], /^o=\S+ \d+ \d+ IN IP4 \S+$/);
    const fields = RegExp(/^o=\S+ (\d+) (\d+) IN IP4 (\S+)/).exec(offer_lines[1]);
    // Per RFC 3264, the sess-id should be representable in an uint64
    // Note: JSEP -24 has this wrong - see bug:
    // https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/855
    assert_less_than(Number(fields[1]), 2**64);
    // Per RFC 3264, the version should be less than 2^62 to avoid overflow
    assert_less_than(Number(fields[2]), 2**62);
    // JSEP says that the address part SHOULD be a meaningless address
    // "such as" IN IP4 0.0.0.0. This is to prevent unintentional disclosure
    // of IP addresses, so this is important enough to verify. Right now we
    // allow 127.0.0.1 and 0.0.0.0, but there are other things we could allow.
    // Maybe 0.0.0.0/8, 127.0.0.0/8, 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, 203.0.113.0/24?
    // (See RFC 3330, RFC 5737)
    assert_true(fields[3] == "0.0.0.0" || fields[3] == "127.0.0.1",
      fields[3] + " must be a meaningless IPV4 address")

    assert_regexp_match(offer_lines[2], /^s=\S+$/);
    // After this, the order is not dictated by JSEP.
    // TODO: Check lines subsequent to the s= line.
  }, 'Offer conforms to basic SDP requirements');
</script>
