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

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Petit-Huguenin [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 9:17 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: 'Eric Rescorla'; 'Ned Freed'; 'Behave WG'; 'Keith Moore'; 'Keith
> Moore'; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 11/04/2011 09:06 AM, Dan Wing wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >> Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
> >> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 8:56 AM
> >> To: Ned Freed
> >> Cc: Keith Moore; Keith Moore; Behave WG; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> Top-posting a general principle, detailed comment at the
> bottom....
> >>>
> >>>> For all URI schemes, I think the URI needs to contain all the
> >>>> information you need in order to make contact with the service;
> you
> >>>> can't negotiate until you've made contact.
> >>>> (the process may involve things like "resolve through a resolution
> >>>> mechanism like DNS" or "get authorization tokens from somewhere
> >> else").
> >>>
> >>>> In the case of TURN, you need to distinguish between TCP, UDP and
> >> TLS,
> >>>> and you need to make that determination before you send the first
> >>>> packet. That means the distinguishing information between those
> >> three
> >>>> things belongs in the URL; I don't think the scheme is a good
> place
> >> to
> >>>> encode it.
> >>>
> >>> I'm in complete agreement with Harald on all of these points. And
> >> while it
> >>> would have been nice if URL syntax was less messy and more general,
> >> making
> >>> it easier to do these sorts of things in a consistent way, it quite
> >> simply
> >>> isn't and we have to make do with what we have.
> >>
> >> I don't have any commitment to the scheme. What's the best place?
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uri-bis-05
> > uses "?transport=", for example:
> >
> >   turn://example.com?transport=tcp
> >   turns://example.com?transport=udp
> 
> The document uses opaque URI (there was a long discussion at the time
> about
> this), so it is in fact:
> 
> turn:example.com?transport=tcp
> turns:example.com?transport=udp

Thanks for the correction.

(some examples in the I-D would be useful, to avoid mistakes like mine.)

-d


> - --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Personal email: [e-mail]
> Professional email: [e-mail]
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk60EBIACgkQ9RoMZyVa61fG4wCeLR4SnIoXerj7ONxM6QeKgjZh
> rmoAmwbBUDmL6YOlnfH1sWsC6a6R+4Bz
> =Iqfa
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----