Re: [rtcweb] URI schemes for TURN and STUN

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 04 November 2011 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 A61F321F8B7B; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 qZ3CsaOzw8rw; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:56:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22A421F8B49; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:56:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so220460vws.31 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.52.65.14 with SMTP id t14mr13419980vds.47.1320422214081; Fri, 04 Nov 2011 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.118.132 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <01O80L7NM7N000RCTX@mauve.mrochek.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>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:56:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPCGcUcEDNJ5T3+LowrdTz-NAka3Q33CA8mvdwb0=+aZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@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 15:56:58 -0000

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?

-Ekr