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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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<[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>  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.
Second opinion: draft-petithuguenin uses TURN and TURNS as scheme names.
I still think this is doing it wrong.

                   Harald