Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

[Ned Freed <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

				Ned