IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Sun, 06 November 2011 16:58 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 7041721F851F; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 08:58:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, 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 34fiz8GP6+3y; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FBC821F8515; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 08:58:49 -0800 (PST)
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 424AD20138; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 16:49:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4EB6BCC5.6020407@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 08:58:45 -0800
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: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
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> <4EB480E7.1010200@alvestrand.no> <CABcZeBPba+PU5234jpHRYa0sfiwKVVFg6C-oGXBUEehvjrmpmw@mail.gmail.com> <48690B43-422C-4B65-8A70-B01F01F8FD97@cisco.com> <4EB552F0.6050800@acm.org> <4EB6B792.8030207@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4EB6B792.8030207@alvestrand.no>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, 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: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:58:50 -0000

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

On 11/06/2011 08:36 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 04:14 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/05/2011 08:04 AM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Harald Alvestrand<harald@alvestrand.no
>>>> <mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>>  wrote:
>>>>> On 11/04/2011 04:56 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>>>> 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.)
>>>> I don't see any security problem with that. The "break old
>>>> implementations" rationale
>>>> doesn't apply when we are defining a new URI scheme.
>>> I agree with this as well.  If we can get some consensus with this, I will
>>> update the next version of both the STUN and TURN URI Scheme drafts to include
>>> this format.
>> Or you can look at draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uri-bis, which is already
>> doing it right (and had a lot of reviews back in 2008, before I split the
>> resolution mechanism and the syntax in two separate documents).
>>
>> I know my email address does not contain the magical "cisco.com", but this is
>> getting ridiculous.
> 
> Sorry, some of us were not on BEHAVE in 2008, and missed the previous discussion.

This is not the problem.  The problem is that the authors of the new draft
continue to ignore a draft that is the result of BEHAVE, IESG, security,
gen-art, ops and other directorate reviews.  (To be fair, two employees of Cisco
I worked with in the past contacted me to see how to work on this but none of
the authors of the draft did).

- -- 
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)

iEYEARECAAYFAk62vMMACgkQ9RoMZyVa61fiSwCfZtnYxYBbxMmebzKwkQa19Uus
7v4AoJiPr0aHYvKAoEUkwJNp7DyvpYVW
=r7Po
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email