Re: [Uri-review] [Fwd: [BEHAVE] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-turn-uri (Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers) to Proposed Standard]

[Andrew Newton <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 22, 2009, at 3:05 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

>> ...
>> With regard to complexity, that is most likely in the eye of the
>> beholder.  I would think this is more complex than other uses of
>> S-NAPTR.  I don't know how one goes about judging these sort of  
>> things.
>> Perhaps it would be helpful to look at an S-NAPTR implementation.
>> VeriSign's SVN repository still hosts pysnaptr, which you can find  
>> here:
>> http://svn.verisignlabs.com/main/snaptr/pysnaptr/tags/RELEASE_0_1/pysnaptr
>>
> ...
> For comparison my own reference implementation in Java of the TURN  
> URI parser
> and resolver is 364 lines long.  This is without the RFC 3958  
> implementation,
> 255 lines long, and the RFC 2782 implementation which is 141 lines  
> long. The URL
> to this reference implementation is in Annex A.10 in the I-D.

Marc,

I suppose if I had been a little more caffeinated this morning, I  
would have also provided links to VeriSign's Java and Perl  
implementations of 3958:

http://svn.verisignlabs.com/main/snaptr/net_dns_snaptr/trunk/lib/Net/DNS/SNAPTR.pm
http://svn.verisignlabs.com/main/snaptr/jsnaptr/trunk/src/com/verisignlabs/jsnatpr/JSNaptr.java

Lines of code is certainly one measure of complexity, but that can be  
heavily influenced by the programming style and language used.  Again,  
this is all subjective, but in my opinion it is complex.  I think most  
of that is due to the nature of NAPTR and DNS itself and perhaps  
cannot be avoided.  I hope this is helpful.

-andy