On 8/15/13 8:10 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > On 08/15/2013 04:05 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: >> Harald, >> >> Briefly: >> >> 1. Thanks for the reference, >> >> and >> >> 2. I misunderstood what you meant by "This is a format for a piece of >> data". In light of your clarification, I withdraw my comments 3 & 4. >> Identification of the STUN service would appear to be a perfectly >> reasonable use. >> >> ... >> >> So the remaining issues from my questions are whether the intended >> highly constrained use of these services justifies allocating a URI >> scheme. >> >> If the community consensus is that it is of sufficient value, I might >> suggest an annotation to the scheme registration along the lines of: >> >> "This URI scheme is intended for use in very specific NAT traversal >> environments, and should not be used otherwise on the open Web or >> Internet." >> >> Would such a comment run contrary to your expectations for its use? > > I would prefer to run the comment as "This scheme is intended for use in > specific environments that involve NAT traversal. Users of the scheme > need to carefully consider the security properties of the context in > which they are using it." > > Echoing the warning in the STUN scheme - "use this when you know what > you're doing only". > > Frankly, like Hadriel indicated, I have no idea whether it will be > useful in other contexts or not, I tend to think not. > and I'm hesitant to put language that > seems to claim that we've evaluated all possible contexts Agreed. > and say that > there aren't other contexts in which it can be useful. Too many negatives. :-) You are hesitant to say that it won't be useful in other contexts, or you would prefer to say that it was designed for a specific contexts and probably wouldn't be useful outside that context? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/