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.