Hi Marc,
Thanks for your reply. Some further comments below.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Marc Petit-Huguenin
<marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Thanks for reviewing this I-D. See my comments below.
>
> Ted Hardie wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I do not believe this document is ready for publication, as I believe
>> the URI scheme documentation needs work. As it stands now, the
>> scheme-specific processing required for this scheme is so great that I
>> believe a standard URI parser will not work with the scheme as it is
>> intended. Looking, for example, at the CPAN module PERL::URI, the
>> operation of the standard behavior for path and port seem likely to
>> work contrary to this scheme's intention.
>
> The standard behavior for path does not apply in this case, because a TURN URI
> is an opaque URI, not a hierarchical URI, as advised by RFC 4395[1]. As far as
> I understand PERL::URI, this should fall in the scheme specific support of
> PERL::URI[2], like for SIP and MAILTO URIs.
>
RFC 3986 has the following text:
A parser of the generic URI syntax can parse any URI reference into
its major components. Once the scheme is determined, further
scheme-specific parsing can be performed on the components. In other
words, the URI generic syntax is a superset of the syntax of all URI
schemes.
When you re-use elements from RFC 3986 (as you do with port, to
take on example), I believe the general expectation will be that you
are using them in ways that would allow general parsing to occur
first, as per the text in RFC 3986. If you do not wish to have this
general parsing occur before scheme-specific behavior, I believe
that you would be better off not re-using the elements as you have done
here. Some further discussion on the URI list on exactly how to achieve
what you want might turn out to be appropriate.
>> I also could not follow the
>> details of how this would work in relation to a DDDS remote hosting
>> option, as mentioned in section 1, and I believe that more descriptive
>> text may be required.
>
> The best would be to add another example for this usage:
>
> <begin-text>
> 5. Examples
>
> 5.1. Multiple Protocols
>
> With the DNS RRs in Figure 1 and an ordered TURN transport list of
> {TLS, TCP, UDP}, the resolution algorithm will convert the "turn:
> example.net" URI to the list of IP addresses, port and protocol
> tuples in Table 2.
>
>
> example.net.
> IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "RELAY:turn.udp" "" datagram.example.net.
> IN NAPTR 200 10 "" "RELAY:turn.tcp:turn.tls" "" stream.example.net.
>
> datagram.example.net.
> IN NAPTR 100 10 "S" "RELAY:turn.udp" "" _udp._turn.example.net.
>
> stream.example.net.
> IN NAPTR 100 10 "S" "RELAY:turn.tcp" "" _turn._tcp.example.net.
> IN NAPTR 200 10 "A" "RELAY:turn.tls" "" a.example.net.
>
> _turn._udp.example.net.
> IN SRV 0 0 3478 a.example.net.
>
> _turn._tcp.example.net.
> IN SRV 0 0 5000 a.example.net.
>
> a.example.net.
> IN A 192.0.2.1
>
>
> Figure 1
>
> +-------+----------+------------+------+
> | Order | Protocol | IP address | Port |
> +-------+----------+------------+------+
> | 1 | UDP | 192.0.2.1 | 3478 |
> | 2 | TLS | 192.0.2.1 | 5349 |
> | 3 | TCP | 192.0.2.1 | 5000 |
> +-------+----------+------------+------+
>
> Table 2
>
> 5.2. Remote Hosting
>
> In the example in Figure 2, a VoIP provider (example.com) is using
> the TURN servers managed by the administrators of the example.net
> domain (defined in Figure 1). The resolution algorithm using the
> ordered TURN transport list of {TLS, TCP, UDP} would convert the
> "turn:example.com" URI to the list of IP addresses, port and protocol
> tuples in Table 2.
>
>
> example.com.
> IN NAPTR 100 10 "" "RELAY:turn.udp:turn.tcp:turn.tls" "" example.net.
>
>
> Figure 2
> </end-text>
>
>
This is somewhat clearer, but the transport list ordering is still confusing
to me (for more, see below).
>>
>> One area of particular concern is this:
>>
>> "The URI resolution algorithm uses <scheme>, <host>, <port> and
>> <transport> as input. It also uses as input a list ordered by
>> preference of TURN transports (UDP, TCP, TLS) supported by the
>> application using the TURN client. The output of the algorithm is a
>> list of {IP address, transport, port} tuples that a TURN client can
>> try in order to create an allocation on a TURN server."
>>
>> Having a URI resolution method rely on a preference order associated
>> with a calling application seems very fragile. There seems to be no way
>> to guarantee that the information on calling application would be preserved in
>> passing the URI to a parser. If this input list is required, I suspect that
>> that it must be noted within a URI parameter to avoid unexpected or incorrect
>> results.
>
> I am not sure to fully understand the concern here. The preference order is
> used so the resolver can choose in case of a tie. There is 3 different sources
> of data that are processed by the resolution algorithm to generate the list of
> {IP address, port, protocol} tuples to try:
>
Where does it get the preference order? The document seems to imply that
the preference order is associated with an application using the URI, which
you have restated in 2. below. As stated above, this implies knowledge
of that preference order in the URI parser, without explicitly passing that
knowledge. If that is not correct, sorry, but that is how the document reads
to me at the moment. If that is correct, it seems fragile.
> 1. The NAPR/SRV/A/AAA RRs that express the preferences of the domain(s)
> administrators.
>
> 2. The ordered list of TURN transports that express the preferences of the
> application developers (i.e. the capabilities of the application - what
> protocols are implemented - and in case the algorithm cannot decide, the
> preferred protocol - the fastest implementation, or more secure, etc...).
>
> 3. The URI itself that express the preferences of the user of the application
> (i.e. specific IP, specific port, specific transport or just the domain if the
> user does not care).
>
> Moving the ordered list of TURN transports to the URI would prevent the
> application to provide to the resolution algorithm its own capabilities and
> preferences.
>
> Let me know if you think that the current text does not reflect this
> explanation, in which case I will try to add some text.
>
Honestly, I am increasingly confused about why it would not be
better to simply use the existing DNS URI scheme to point to
the NAPTR RRs, then apply all the post processing to what
is returned, without trying to do a portion of this within this scheme
structure. That's obviously a different set of trade-offs, but given
the extensive set of scheme-specific behavior this requires, I'm
not sure I understand the engineering choice here.
regards,
Ted Hardie
>>
>> Since this mechanism involves a fairly distinctive URI resolution
>> mechanism, I suggest that this document also be reviewed by the URI
>> mailing list, in addition to URI-review. It seems more likely to be
>> able to discuss how to best meet the requirements expressed within a
>> URI syntax more likely to be handled correctly by parsers already
>> deployed.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted Hardie
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Magnus Westerlund
>> <magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As responsible AD I would really appreciate an URI review of the two
>>> proposed URI schemes.
>>>
>
>
> [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg06537.html
> [2] http://search.cpan.org/~gaas/URI-1.40/URI.pm#SCHEME-SPECIFIC_SUPPORT
>
> - --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Personal email: marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Professional email: petithug@xxxxxxx
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkrXrjIACgkQ9RoMZyVa61cM7wCgn+57/Rab0lg1jQCMASabTPx/
> 2lAAoKr/ntOzbchDJj8SHZSOLrl/chgg
> =OIPz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf