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

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> On 11/05/2011 04:14 PM, 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<[e-mail]
> >>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>  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 know my email address does not contain the magical "cisco.com", but this is
> > getting ridiculous.

> Second opinion: draft-petithuguenin uses TURN and TURNS as scheme names.
> I still think this is doing it wrong.

I concur, especially since two different security layers could be used for some
transports in addition to none at all. The security layer needs to be specified
as a parameter.

				Ned