Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 08/13/2013 09:03 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> At 15:14 12-08-2013, Graham Klyne wrote:
>> But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to 
>> ask *why* this needs to be a URI.  As far as I can tell, it is 
>> intended for use only in very constrained environments, where there 
>> seems to be little value in having an identifier that can appear in 
>> all the contexts where a URI may be recognized.
>
> This is an individual comment.  I reviewed 
> draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-05.  I wondered why a URI was 
> needed given the limited use.  The same argument is applicable for 
> draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.  There is running code for both 
> drafts.  Both draft qualify for "DNP".  I would describe the proposals 
> as trying to fit the solution within a URI instead of designing a URI 
> scheme.  Both proposals sound like UNSAF.

FWIW, UNSAF = Unilateral Self Address Fixing, or "figuring out what my 
address is on the Internet", and is exactly what STUN is useful for.

In a world of NATs, UNSAF is, unfortunately, a necessary thing to do. 
These URI schemes allow us to pass configuration data for performing 
these operations in a standardized form.