Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E23721F8A71; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uf0RaQaiQio2; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.59.230.40]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CC421F8A70; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O80L7PEC340183VD@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01O7ZO5R0F0G00RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:33:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <01O80L7NM7N000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:31:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Tue, 01 Nov 2011 13:44:19 -0700" <4EB05A23.3060101@alvestrand.no>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
References: <4EAC6BF4.2000604@alvestrand.no> <CALiegf=f4kFzyDLWK+Y5vbuCEJFXX590+VuZ4bbnHZnvX0CoBA@mail.gmail.com> <4EAC8AE0.3020307@acm.org> <4EACD558.1050003@alvestrand.no> <4EAE157F.5020901@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EAEB76B.9090304@acm.org> <8B0C4061-D362-4DFE-9677-7E64515A6E1C@network-heretics.com> <4EAF9391.5040209@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EB05A23.3060101@alvestrand.no>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:52:42 -0700
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:36:31 -0000

> 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