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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy