Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Keith Moore <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> In most cases probably not. But there may be cases similar to HTTP/S where it makes sense. Each case has to be analyzed independently.
>
> agree.  I just don't think it's a good idea to establish a new _convention_.

i don't really understand what you're arguing here.

The relevant issue is that we want to have a reference that Bob can provide
to Alice that guarantees that when it's dereferenced it provides a minimum
set of security properties.

Let's imagine some hypothetical new protocol which is like HTTP but not HTTP,
say HTTQ. It runs over TCP so you can use it directly or over TLS (i.e.,
HTTP/TCP or HTTP/TLS/TCP). We're planning to define a new URI for it,
httq://.../. How do you propose to provide the above security property?

-Ekr