Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

On 11/04/2011 04:56 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 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?
I like parameters, like this:

turn://user@host?proto=tcp

Quite hard to misunderstand, and quite easy to extend.

(Note: // is only allowed if what follows is [user[:pass]@]host - I 
don't recommend using the password, for the obvious reasons, but the 
syntax will allow it.)

> -Ekr
>