IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Fri, 04 November 2011 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
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 3CE5F21F8C1E; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 v5HDOoI-sG3F; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6017521F8C34; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08] (shalmaneser.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:616:213:d4ff:fe04:3e08]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "petithug", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE3220595; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 16:08:30 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4EB41016.7080205@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 09:17:26 -0700
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20111010 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
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> <01O80L7NM7N000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.com> <CABcZeBPCGcUcEDNJ5T3+LowrdTz-NAka3Q33CA8mvdwb0=+aZg@mail.gmail.com> <02a901cc9b0b$a9638940$fc2a9bc0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <02a901cc9b0b$a9638940$fc2a9bc0$@com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>, 'Keith Moore' <moore@network-heretics.com>, 'Keith Moore' <moore@cs.utk.edu>, 'Ned Freed' <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [BEHAVE] 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 16:17:33 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/04/2011 09:06 AM, Dan Wing wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
>> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 8:56 AM
>> To: Ned Freed
>> Cc: Keith Moore; Keith Moore; Behave WG; rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
>> 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

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Personal email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Professional email: petithug@acm.org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk60EBIACgkQ9RoMZyVa61fG4wCeLR4SnIoXerj7ONxM6QeKgjZh
rmoAmwbBUDmL6YOlnfH1sWsC6a6R+4Bz
=Iqfa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email