Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Reference to SDP in BluetoothScanFilter. #14

Closed
armansito opened this issue Aug 14, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed

Reference to SDP in BluetoothScanFilter. #14

armansito opened this issue Aug 14, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

@armansito
Copy link

The documentation for BluetoothScanFilter says the following:

When determining the list of Service UUIDs a device supports, the UA must include Services advertised by the device, and may include Services previously discovered through the Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP).

This should probably be clarified a bit. SDP is used for discovering services over BR/EDR and, while GATT over BR/EDR is possible, these are not limited to GATT services. This should really read something like "..., and may include GATT services previously discovered through the Attribute Protocol (ATT) and/or Service Discovery Protocol (SDP)"

@jyasskin
Copy link
Member

If SDP isn't used for LE at all, I probably shouldn't mention SDP in the spec. (This wasn't clear when reading the Bluetooth spec, so thanks for pointing it out.) I'll change this to just mention ATT.

@armansito
Copy link
Author

Low-energy devices will exclusively use ATT. But it IS possible for a classic device to support GATT over a BR/EDR link. I guess it should be clarified whether this API is meant strictly for low-energy devices or for anything that supports GATT.

@jyasskin
Copy link
Member

3.C.15.4 says, "If a BR/EDR or BR/EDR/LE device supports a GATT-based service on the BR/
EDR transport, the service shall exist in the SDP server and the GATT server.", so you're right that a GATT service could be discovered via either.

I'm not sure if we want the spec to support BR/EDR. At the moment, I'm only making sure that my terminology supports LE, and it looks like the scanning part of this definition would also need to change to explicitly support BR/EDR. However, if it's easy to generalize the wording without sacrificing privacy or security properties, it'd be nice to include BR/EDR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants