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?
#g
--
On 15/08/2013 11:04, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 08/15/2013 11:04 AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
Hi Harald,
On 14/08/2013 19:49, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
On 08/13/2013 12:14 AM, 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.
The criteria for new URI schemes in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 include:
"New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community,
beyond that available with already registered URI schemes."
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2.1
This "utility to the broader community" is not clear to me, but I don't fully
understand the intended scope of this protocol, so I could be missing
something. So, in declaring consensus for this specification, I would request
that this aspect at least be considered.
I can only give my personal opinion....
1) This is a format for a piece of data. This data cannot be expressed using any
existing URI scheme - indeed, I don't think there exists another well-defined
textual representation of this piece of data.
1) This is defining an identifier that will be used in W3C-defined APIs. W3C
tends to use URIs every time they want a self-defining piece of data with a
clearly defined structure.
In the particular API where this is wanted, one wants to have STUN URIs, TURNS
URIs and TURN URIs passed over the same interface. Thus, keeping with the W3C
tradition of URIs seems reasonable.
I think this answers the question about "utility to the broader community" to my
satisfaction - your mileage may differ, of course.
Some thoughts occur to me:
1. My reading was that this is a generic NAT traversal protocol, so the
requirement here is not Web/W3C specific. But you do say "used in W3C-defined
APIs"...
Truth in advertising: One W3C-defined API.
The specific reference:
http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#dictionary-rtciceserver-members
2. If this is being driven by W3C activities, this should probably be flagged
with W3C TAG. I'll raise it there.
3. URIs are not generally used as *data* formats, but rather as identifiers
for resources. Web architecture and REST principles tend to discourage
information encoded in URIs in favour of data representation formats. Cf.
http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity,
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html
Well, it is. The data encoded is the identification of a STUN server, which is a
resource.
4. If the purpose here is simply to encode data, then there does already exist
a suitable URI scheme, viz data:. A new content type can be defined to
actually encode the required data, and the whole be wrapped in a data: URI.
This approach has the advantage that alternative mechanisms (other than URIs)
can be used to transfer the traversal data if required (though that may be
moot in the very restricted intended scope of deployment for stun:, etc.)
Yes, but why?
...
Further, according to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389 it appears that there
are security considerations with regard to the STUN protocol that it should
not be used in isolation:
[[
Classic STUN also had a security vulnerability -- attackers could
provide the client with incorrect mapped addresses under certain
topologies and constraints, and this was fundamentally not solvable
through any cryptographic means. Though this problem remains with
this specification, those attacks are now mitigated through the use
of more complete solutions that make use of STUN.
For these reasons, this specification obsoletes RFC 3489, and instead
describes STUN as a tool that is utilized as part of a complete NAT
traversal solution.
]]
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389#section-2
It seems to me that creating a URI for STUN could encourage its use in
environments outside the "more complete solutions that make use of STUN".
This seems to be further reason that STUN[S] should not be a URI scheme.
I have also suggested that, if registered, the URI scheme registration should
carries a "health warning" to this effect, and that it is not suitable for
general use that is not part of a "complete NAT traversal solution". But I
also recognize that I do not fully grasp the security implications, and that
if those that do know better can agree that there is no potential for creating
security risks here, this suggestion may be unnecessary.
This URI scheme does not represent STUN. It represents configuration data that
is used to initialize a protocol machine that utilizes STUN.
This configuration data has to be passed no matter what the format of the data
is - whether it be URI or not.
Thus, I do not think the argument raised is really relevant to the context. The
data will be passed, and registering an URI scheme will cause no more and no
less data to be passed.
Again, my opinion.
If the URI is used only in very constrained contexts, then I agree.
But the whole point of using a URI is that, due to URI opacity, it can be used
a a range of contexts where URIs are used. If it cannot properly be used in
those other contexts, I have to question if it really is a URI, as opposed to
a string that happens to look like a URI.
The subject of "if it really is an URI" has plagued the whole URI space since
day one. My current opinion is that if it looks like an URI, and parses
according to the URI spec, it should probably be called an URI.
So far, we know of one context where we need this (RTCWEB). It's the first
context I know of where the Web and STUN intersect. It's not certain that it'll
be the last one.
I also note that this looks as if it may fall foul of the "confidential
metadata" practice noted in the W3C TAG finding about metadata in URIs
(http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html#hideforsecurity)
That's why we took the "credentials" part out of the URI scheme.