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

Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com> Sun, 06 November 2011 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <gsalguei@cisco.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 DD97421F85A4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:11:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 Gq7incasEbp6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:11:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (hen.cisco.com [64.102.19.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA1521F8591 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 10:11:04 -0800 (PST)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from chook.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA6IB3Pp016386 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 13:11:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-gsalguei-8712.cisco.com (rtp-gsalguei-8712.cisco.com [10.116.61.51]) by chook.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pA6IAv68020484; Sun, 6 Nov 2011 13:10:57 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-148-845957745"
From: Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EB6BCC5.6020407@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2011 13:10:57 -0500
Message-Id: <430C8C33-6F5F-4278-ADEB-44D963868DFA@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> <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> <4EB6BCC5.6020407@acm.org>
To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 18:11:06 -0000

On Nov 6, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

> -----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).
> 

I find it incredible I need to explain anything about ignoring your draft when in our draft it clearly states:
   We acknowledge the existence of
   draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uri-bis-04 document as a parallel
   effort in defining the URI scheme for TURN.  Awareness of this draft
   came late in the process and we have not had to time to reach out to
   the author of that memo and discuss opportunities to collaborate on a
   single document.  It is our intentions to do so.
The discussion you had with Cullen and Dan are known to us but we were pretty much finished both the STUN and TURN drafts by the time we found out about your draft. At this point we were waiting for you and Cullen to discuss the best way forward to meet the needs of WebRTC.  We are happy to combine forces or yield entirely, based on that discussion.

Regards,

Gonzalo


> - -- 
> 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-----
>