IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Sat, 05 November 2011 15:28 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2770E21F899F for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 08:28:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dArHUTdUdGwM for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5650621F8494 for <behave@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 08:28:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA5FSfI2024308 for <behave@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 11:28:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8712.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8712.cisco.com [10.116.61.51]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA5FSeps027057; Sat, 5 Nov 2011 11:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-133-749820295"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EB552F0.6050800@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 11:28:40 -0400
Message-Id: <D862A193-BD64-445C-A2D0-A35B520A13F0@cisco.com>
References: <4EAC6BF4.2000604@alvestrand.no> <CALiegf=f4kFzyDLWK+Y5vbuCEJFXX590+VuZ4bbnHZnvX0CoBA@mail.gmail.com> <4EAC8AE0.3020307@acm.org> <4EACD558.1050003@alvestrand.no> <4EAE157F.5020901@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EAEB76B.9090304@acm.org> <8B0C4061-D362-4DFE-9677-7E64515A6E1C@network-heretics.com> <4EAF9391.5040209@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EB05A23.3060101@alvestrand.no> <01O80L7NM7N000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <CABcZeBPCGcUcEDNJ5T3+LowrdTz-NAka3Q33CA8mvdwb0=+aZg@mail.gmail.com> <4EB480E7.1010200@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBPba+PU5234jpHRYa0sfiwKVVFg6C-oGXBUEehvjrmpmw@mail.gmail.com> <48690B43-422C-4B65-8A70-B01F01F8FD97@cisco.com> <4EB552F0.6050800@acm.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2011 15:28:43 -0000

On Nov 5, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 11/05/2011 08:04 AM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote:
>> 
>> On Nov 5, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no
>>> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2011 04:56 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I don't have any commitment to the scheme. What's the best place?
>>>> 
>>>> I like parameters, like this:
>>>> 
>>>> turn://user@host?proto=tcp
>>>> 
>>>> Quite hard to misunderstand, and quite easy to extend.
>>>> 
>>>> (Note: // is only allowed if what follows is [user[:pass]@]host - I don't
>>>> recommend using the password, for the obvious reasons, but the syntax will
>>>> allow it.)
>>> 
>>> I don't see any security problem with that. The "break old
>>> implementations" rationale
>>> doesn't apply when we are defining a new URI scheme.
>> 
>> I agree with this as well.  If we can get some consensus with this, I will
>> update the next version of both the STUN and TURN URI Scheme drafts to include
>> this format.
> 
> Or you can look at draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uri-bis, which is already
> doing it right (and had a lot of reviews back in 2008, before I split the
> resolution mechanism and the syntax in two separate documents).
> 
I was under the impression (based on an exchange with Cullen) that you had no plans to pass user credentials in the URI scheme you were proposing. I'm perfectly OK with whatever the group decides. Nonetheless, the change makes change to me for one or both drafts.

> I know my email address does not contain the magical "cisco.com", but this is
> getting ridiculous.

I have no idea where this came from, so I'll choose to leave it alone.

Regards,

Gonzalo

> 
> - -- 
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Professional email: petithug@acm.org
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk61Uu4ACgkQ9RoMZyVa61eFrQCgiw1H8kTxgpd90sV1OYuSg3tN
> B+cAnA9V/XhzV3MAg93WOxpKIAvwk/Nu
> =jYZJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email