Re: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 08/13/2013 09:03 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
At 15:14 12-08-2013, Graham Klyne wrote:
But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to ask *why* this needs to be a URI. As far as I can tell, it is intended for use only in very constrained environments, where there seems to be little value in having an identifier that can appear in all the contexts where a URI may be recognized.

This is an individual comment. I reviewed draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-05. I wondered why a URI was needed given the limited use. The same argument is applicable for draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05. There is running code for both drafts. Both draft qualify for "DNP". I would describe the proposals as trying to fit the solution within a URI instead of designing a URI scheme. Both proposals sound like UNSAF.

FWIW, UNSAF = Unilateral Self Address Fixing, or "figuring out what my address is on the Internet", and is exactly what STUN is useful for.

In a world of NATs, UNSAF is, unfortunately, a necessary thing to do. These URI schemes allow us to pass configuration data for performing these operations in a standardized form.





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]