Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 9:43 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Ned Freed; Keith Moore; Keith Moore; Behave WG; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN
> 
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> 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
> 
> I'm confused. I thought the idea was to distinguish TLS from non-TLS,
> but you seem to be doing that in the scheme.

Harald said:

  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.

Keith has never liked using "S" in HTTPS (or other URIs).  *shrug*.
I think that ship sailed.

-d