One document matched: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM "rfc2629.dtd">
<?rfc toc="yes"?>
<?rfc tocompact="yes"?>
<?rfc tocdepth="3"?>
<?rfc tocindent="yes"?>
<?rfc symrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc sortrefs="yes"?>
<?rfc comments="yes"?>
<?rfc inline="yes"?>
<?rfc compact="yes"?>
<?rfc subcompact="no"?>
<rfc category="std" docName="draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05" ipr="trust200902">
<front>
<title abbrev="STUN URI">URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol</title>
<author fullname="Suhas Nandakumar" initials="S" surname="Nandakumar">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>170 West Tasman Drive</street>
<city>San Jose</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>95134</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>snandaku@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Gonzalo Salgueiro" initials="G.S." surname="Salgueiro">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>7200-12 Kit Creek Road</street>
<city>Research Triangle Park</city>
<region>NC</region>
<code>27709</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>gsalguei@cisco.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Paul E. Jones" initials="P.J." surname="Jones">
<organization>Cisco Systems</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>7025 Kit Creek Road</street>
<city>Research Triangle Park</city>
<region>NC</region>
<code>27709</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<email>paulej@packetizer.com</email>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Marc Petit-Huguenin" initials="M.P.H" surname="Petit-Huguenin">
<organization>Impedance Mismatch</organization>
<address>
<email>petithug@acm.org</email>
</address>
</author>
<date day="12" month="July" year="2013"/>
<area>Real Time Applications and Infrastructure</area>
<workgroup>RTCWEB</workgroup>
<abstract>
<t>This document is the specification of the syntax and semantics of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<middle>
<section title="Introduction">
<t>This document specifies the syntax and semantics of the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) protocol.</t>
<t>STUN is a protocol that serves as a tool for other protocols in dealing with Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal. It can be used by an endpoint to determine the IP address and port allocated to it by a NAT, to perform connectivity checks between two endpoints, and used as a keepalive protocol to maintain NAT bindings. RFC 5389 <xref target="RFC5389"></xref> defines the specifics of the STUN protocol.</t>
<t>The "stun" and "stuns" URI schemes are used to designate a standalone STUN server or any Internet host performing the operations of a STUN server in the context of STUN usages (Section 14 RFC 5389 <xref target="RFC5389"></xref>). With the advent of standards such as WEBRTC <xref target="WEBRTC"></xref>, we anticipate a plethora of endpoints and web applications to be able to identify and communicate with such a STUN server to carry out the STUN protocol. This also implies those endpoints and/or applications to be provisioned with appropriate configuration required to identify the STUN server. Having an inconsistent syntax has its drawbacks and can result in non-interoperable solutions. It can result in solutions that are ambiguous and have implementation limitations on the different aspects of the syntax and alike. The 'stun/stuns' URI scheme helps alleviate most of these issues by providing a consistent way to describe, configure and exchange the information identifying a STUN server. This would also prevent the shortcomings inherent with encoding similar information in non-uniform syntaxes such as the ones proposed in the WEBRTC Standards <xref target="WEBRTC"></xref>, for example.</t>
</section>
<section title="Terminology">
<t>The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in <xref target="RFC2119"/> when they appear in ALL CAPS. When these words are not in ALL CAPS (such as "should" or "Should"), they have their usual english meanings, and are not to be interpreted as RFC 2119 key words.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="syntax" title="Definition of the STUN or STUNS URI">
<section anchor="URI_Scheme_Syntax" title="URI Scheme Syntax">
<t>A STUN/STUNS URI has the following formal ABNF syntax <xref target="RFC5234"/>:</t>
<figure>
<artwork type="abnf"><![CDATA[
stunURI = scheme ":" stun-host [ ":" stun-port ]
scheme = "stun" / "stuns"
stun-host = IP-literal / IPv4address / reg-name
stun-port = *DIGIT
IP-literal = "[" ( IPv6address / IPvFuture ) "]"
IPvFuture = "v" 1*HEXDIG "." 1*( unreserved / sub-delims / ":" )
IPv6address = 6( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ "::" 5( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ h16 ] "::" 4( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ *1( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 3( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ *2( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" 2( h16 ":" ) ls32
/ [ *3( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16 ":" ls32
/ [ *4( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" ls32
/ [ *5( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::" h16
/ [ *6( h16 ":" ) h16 ] "::"
h16 = 1*4HEXDIG
ls32 = ( h16 ":" h16 ) / IPv4address
IPv4address = dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet "." dec-octet
dec-octet = DIGIT ; 0-9
/ %x31-39 DIGIT ; 10-99
/ "1" 2DIGIT ; 100-199
/ "2" %x30-34 DIGIT ; 200-249
/ "25" %x30-35 ; 250-255
reg-name = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims )
]]></artwork>
</figure>
<t><unreserved>, <pct-encoded>, and <sub-delims> are specified in <xref target="RFC3986"/>. The core rules <DIGIT> and <HEXDIGIT> are used as described in Appendix B of RFC 5234 <xref target="RFC5234"/>.</t>
</section>
<section anchor="URI_Scheme_Semantics" title="URI Scheme Semantics">
<t>The STUN protocol supports sending messages over UDP, TCP or TLS-over-TCP. The "stuns" URI scheme MUST be used when STUN is run over TLS-over-TCP (or in the future DTLS-over-UDP) and the "stun" scheme MUST be used otherwise.</t>
<t>The required <stun-host> part of the "stun" URI denotes the STUN server host.</t>
<t>For the optional DNS Discovery procedure mentioned in the Section 9 of RFC5389, "stun" URI scheme implies UDP as the transport protocol for SRV lookup and "stuns" URI scheme indicates TCP as the transport protocol.</t>
<t>The <stun-port> part, if present, denotes the port on which the STUN server is awaiting connection requests. If it is absent, the default port is 3478 for both UDP and TCP. The default port for STUN over TLS is 5349 as per Section 9 of RFC 5389 <xref target="RFC5389"></xref>.</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="section.ref-impl" title="Implementation Status">
<t>Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.</t>
<t>This section records the status of known implementations of the protocol defined by this specification at the time of posting of this Internet-Draft, and is based on a proposal described in <xref target="RUNNING-CODE"/>. According to <xref target="RUNNING-CODE"/>, "this will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has made the implemented protocols more mature. It is up to the individual working groups to use this information as they see fit".</t>
<section anchor="section.impl-status.libjingle" title="libjingle">
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Organization: ">Google Inc.</t>
<t hangText="Name: ">libjingle 0.7.1</t>
<t hangText="Description: ">Libjingle is a set of components provided by Google to implement Jingle protocols XEP-166 (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html) and XEP-167 (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html).</t>
<t hangText="Level of maturity: ">Beta.</t>
<t hangText="Coverage: ">Implements draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-01 without IPv6.</t>
<t hangText="Licensing: ">BSD 3-clauses license.</t>
<t hangText="Contact: ">https://code.google.com/p/chromium/</t>
<t hangText="URL: ">https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/libjingle/source/talk/app/webrtc/peerconnection.cc</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section anchor="section.impl-status.firefox" title="Firefox">
<t>
<list style="hanging">
<t hangText="Organization: ">Mozilla</t>
<t hangText="Name: ">Firefox Aurora 21</t>
<t hangText="Description: ">Mozilla Firefox is a free and open source web browser.</t>
<t hangText="Level of maturity: ">Beta.</t>
<t hangText="Coverage: ">Implements draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-03.</t>
<t hangText="Licensing: ">Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0.</t>
<t hangText="Contact: ">http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/</t>
<t hangText="URL: ">http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/4ff1e574e509/media/webrtc/signaling/src/peerconnection/PeerConnectionImpl.cpp</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
<section anchor="security" title="Security Considerations">
<t>The "stun" and "stuns" URI schemes do not introduce any specific security issues beyond the security considerations discussed in <xref target="RFC3986"/>.</t>
</section>
<section title="IANA Considerations">
<t>This section contains the registration information for the "stun" and "stuns" URI Schemes (in accordance with <xref target="RFC4395"/>).</t>
<section title="STUN URI Registration">
<t>URI scheme name: stun</t>
<t>Status: permanent</t>
<t>URI scheme syntax: See <xref target="URI_Scheme_Syntax"/>.</t>
<t>URI scheme semantics: See <xref target="URI_Scheme_Semantics"/>.</t>
<t>Encoding considerations: There are no encoding considerations beyond those in <xref target="RFC3986"/>.</t>
<t>Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:</t>
<t>
<list>
<t>The "stun" URI scheme is intended to be used by applications that might need access to a STUN server.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Interoperability considerations: N/A</t>
<t>Security considerations: See <xref target="security"/>.</t>
<t>Contact: Suhas Nandakumar <snandaku@cisco.com></t>
<t>Author/Change controller: The IESG</t>
<t>References: RFCXXXX</t>
<t>[[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]]</t>
</section>
<section title="STUNS URI Registration">
<t>URI scheme name: stuns</t>
<t>Status: permanent</t>
<t>URI scheme syntax: See <xref target="URI_Scheme_Syntax"/>.</t>
<t>URI scheme semantics: See <xref target="URI_Scheme_Semantics"/>.</t>
<t>Encoding considerations: There are no encoding considerations beyond those in <xref target="RFC3986"/>.</t>
<t>Applications/protocols that use this URI scheme name:</t>
<t>
<list>
<t>The "stuns" URI scheme is intended to be used by applications that might need access to a STUN server over a secure connection.</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>Interoperability considerations: N/A</t>
<t>Security considerations: See <xref target="security"/>.</t>
<t>Contact: Suhas Nandakumar <snandaku@cisco.com></t>
<t>Author/Change controller: The IESG</t>
<t>References: RFCXXXX;</t>
<t>[[NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: Please change XXXX to the number assigned to this specification, and remove this paragraph on publication.]]</t>
</section>
</section>
<section title="Acknowledgements">
<t>Many thanks to Cullen Jennings for his detailed review and thoughtful comments on this document.</t>
<t> Thanks to Dan Wing, Ted Hardie, Bjoern Hoehrmann for their review, feedback comments, and suggestions that helped to improve this document.</t>
<t>This document was written with the xml2rfc tool described in <xref target="RFC2629"/>.</t>
</section>
</middle>
<back>
<references title="Normative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2119">
<front>
<title abbrev="RFC Key Words">Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author fullname="Scott Bradner" initials="S." surname="Bradner">
<organization>Harvard University</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>1350 Mass. Ave.</street>
<street>Cambridge</street>
<street>MA 02138</street>
</postal>
<phone>- +1 617 495 3864</phone>
<email>sob@harvard.edu</email>
</address>
</author>
<date month="March" year="1997"/>
<area>General</area>
<keyword>keyword</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
In many standards track documents several words are used to signify
the requirements in the specification. These words are often
capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be
interpreted in IETF documents. Authors who follow these guidelines
should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document:
<list>
<t>
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
RFC 2119.
</t>
</list>
</t>
<t>
Note that the force of these words is modified by the requirement
level of the document in which they are used.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<format octets="4723" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt" type="TXT"/>
<format octets="17491" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2119.html" type="HTML"/>
<format octets="5777" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2119.xml" type="XML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC3986">
<front>
<title abbrev="URI Generic Syntax">Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax</title>
<author fullname="Tim Berners-Lee" initials="T." surname="Berners-Lee">
<organization abbrev="W3C/MIT">World Wide Web Consortium</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</street>
<street>77 Massachusetts Avenue</street>
<city>Cambridge</city>
<region>MA</region>
<code>02139</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1-617-253-5702</phone>
<facsimile>+1-617-258-5999</facsimile>
<email>timbl@w3.org</email>
<uri>http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Roy T. Fielding" initials="R." surname="Fielding">
<organization abbrev="Day Software">Day Software</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>5251 California Ave., Suite 110</street>
<city>Irvine</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>92617</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1-949-679-2960</phone>
<facsimile>+1-949-679-2972</facsimile>
<email>fielding@gbiv.com</email>
<uri>http://roy.gbiv.com/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<author fullname="Larry Masinter" initials="L." surname="Masinter">
<organization abbrev="Adobe Systems">Adobe Systems Incorporated</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>345 Park Ave</street>
<city>San Jose</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>95110</code>
<country>USA</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1-408-536-3024</phone>
<email>LMM@acm.org</email>
<uri>http://larry.masinter.net/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2005"/>
<area>Applications</area>
<keyword>uniform resource identifier</keyword>
<keyword>URI</keyword>
<keyword>URL</keyword>
<keyword>URN</keyword>
<keyword>WWW</keyword>
<keyword>resource</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>
A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact sequence of characters
that identifies an abstract or physical resource. This specification
defines the generic URI syntax and a process for resolving URI references
that might be in relative form, along with guidelines and security
considerations for the use of URIs on the Internet.
The URI syntax defines a grammar that is a superset of all valid URIs,
allowing an implementation to parse the common components of a URI
reference without knowing the scheme-specific requirements of every
possible identifier. This specification does not define a generative
grammar for URIs; that task is performed by the individual
specifications of each URI scheme.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="STD" value="66"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="3986"/>
<format octets="141811" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt" type="TXT"/>
<format octets="213584" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc3986.html" type="HTML"/>
<format octets="163534" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc3986.xml" type="XML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5234">
<front>
<title>Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF</title>
<author fullname="D. Crocker" initials="D." surname="Crocker">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="P. Overell" initials="P." surname="Overell">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="January" year="2008"/>
<abstract>
<t>Internet technical specifications often need to define a formal syntax. Over the years, a modified version of Backus-Naur Form (BNF), called Augmented BNF (ABNF), has been popular among many Internet specifications. The current specification documents ABNF. It balances compactness and simplicity with reasonable representational power. The differences between standard BNF and ABNF involve naming rules, repetition, alternatives, order-independence, and value ranges. This specification also supplies additional rule definitions and encoding for a core lexical analyzer of the type common to several Internet specifications. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="STD" value="68"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5234"/>
<format octets="26359" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5234.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
</references>
<references title="Informative References">
<reference anchor="RFC2629">
<front>
<title>Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML</title>
<author fullname="Marshall T. Rose" initials="M.T." surname="Rose">
<organization>Invisible Worlds, Inc.</organization>
<address>
<postal>
<street>660 York Street</street>
<city>San Francisco</city>
<region>CA</region>
<code>94110</code>
<country>US</country>
</postal>
<phone>+1 415 695 3975</phone>
<email>mrose@not.invisible.net</email>
<uri>http://invisible.net/</uri>
</address>
</author>
<date month="June" year="1999"/>
<area>General</area>
<keyword>RFC</keyword>
<keyword>Request for Comments</keyword>
<keyword>I-D</keyword>
<keyword>Internet-Draft</keyword>
<keyword>XML</keyword>
<keyword>Extensible Markup Language</keyword>
<abstract>
<t>This memo presents a technique for using XML
(Extensible Markup Language)
as a source format for documents in the Internet-Drafts (I-Ds) and
Request for Comments (RFC) series.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2629"/>
<format octets="48677" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2629.txt" type="TXT"/>
<format octets="71741" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/html/rfc2629.html" type="HTML"/>
<format octets="53481" target="http://xml.resource.org/public/rfc/xml/rfc2629.xml" type="XML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC4395">
<front>
<title>Guidelines and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes</title>
<author fullname="T. Hansen" initials="T." surname="Hansen">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="T. Hardie" initials="T." surname="Hardie">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="L. Masinter" initials="L." surname="Masinter">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="February" year="2006"/>
<abstract>
<t>This document provides guidelines and recommendations for the definition of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) schemes. It also updates the process and IANA registry for URI schemes. It obsoletes both RFC 2717 and RFC 2718. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="35"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="4395"/>
<format octets="31933" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4395.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RFC5389">
<front>
<title>Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)</title>
<author fullname="J. Rosenberg" initials="J." surname="Rosenberg">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="R. Mahy" initials="R." surname="Mahy">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="P. Matthews" initials="P." surname="Matthews">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="D. Wing" initials="D." surname="Wing">
<organization/>
</author>
<date month="October" year="2008"/>
<abstract>
<t>Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) is a protocol that serves as a tool for other protocols in dealing with Network Address Translator (NAT) traversal. It can be used by an endpoint to determine the IP address and port allocated to it by a NAT. It can also be used to check connectivity between two endpoints, and as a keep-alive protocol to maintain NAT bindings. STUN works with many existing NATs, and does not require any special behavior from them.</t><t> STUN is not a NAT traversal solution by itself. Rather, it is a tool to be used in the context of a NAT traversal solution. This is an important change from the previous version of this specification (RFC 3489), which presented STUN as a complete solution.</t><t> This document obsoletes RFC 3489. [STANDARDS-TRACK]</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="5389"/>
<format octets="125650" target="http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5389.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="WEBRTC" target="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120821">
<front>
<title>WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between Browsers</title>
<author fullname="Adam Bergkvist" initials="A." surname="Bergkvist">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Daniel C. Burnett" initials="D." surname="Burnett">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Cullen Jennings" initials="C." surname="Jennings">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Anant Narayanan" initials="A." surname="Narayanan">
<organization/>
</author>
<date day="21" month="August" year="2012"/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="World Wide Web Consortium WD" value="WD-webrtc-20120821"/>
<format target="http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120821" type="HTML"/>
</reference>
<reference anchor="RUNNING-CODE">
<front>
<title>Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section</title>
<author fullname="Yaron Sheffer" initials="Y" surname="Sheffer">
<organization/>
</author>
<author fullname="Adrian Farrel" initials="A" surname="Farrel">
<organization/>
</author>
<date day="2" month="June" year="2013"/>
<abstract>
<t>
This document describes a simple process that allows authors of Internet-Drafts to record the status of known implementations by including an Implementation Status section.
This will allow reviewers and working groups to assign due consideration to documents that have the benefit of running code, by considering the running code as evidence of valuable experimentation and feedback that has made the implemented protocols more mature.
</t>
<t>
The process in this document is offered as an experiment.
Authors of Internet-Drafts are encouraged to consider using the process for their documents, and working groups are invited to think about applying the process to all of their protocol specifications.
The authors of this document intend to collate experiences with this experiment and to report them to the community.
</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="Internet-Draft" value="draft-sheffer-running-code-06"/>
<format target="http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sheffer-running-code-06.txt" type="TXT"/>
</reference>
</references>
<section title="Examples">
<t>
<xref target="examples1"/> shows examples for 'stun/stuns'uri scheme.
For all these examples, the <host> component is populated with "example.org".
</t>
<texttable anchor="examples1">
<ttcol>URI</ttcol>
<c>stun:example.org</c>
<c>stuns:example.org</c>
<c>stun:example.org:8000</c>
</texttable>
</section>
<section title="Design Notes">
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>The ABNF duplicates some definitions from <xref target="RFC3986"/> instead of referencing them. This was done because the definitions in RFC 3986 are for hierarchical URIs, so using these references in an opaque URI proved confusing.</t>
<t>One recurring comment was to stop using the suffix "s" on URI scheme, and to move the secure option to a parameter (e.g., ";proto=tls"). We decided against this idea because the need for ";proto=" for the STUN URI cannot be sufficiently explained and supporting it would render an incomplete specification. This would also result in lost symmetry between the TURN and STUN URIs. A more detailed account of the reasoning behind this is available at <http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org/2012/09/on-design-of-stun-and-turn-uri-formats.html></t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
<section title="Release notes">
<t>NOTE TO RFC EDITOR: This section must be removed before publication as an RFC.</t>
<section title="Modifications between draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05 and draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-04">
<t>
<list style="symbols">
<t>Changed boilerplate from noModificationTrust200902 to trust200902.</t>
<t>Updated RFC 2119 boilerplate to http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/iesg/trac/wiki/Draft2119BoilerplateSuggestions</t>
<t>Removed non-normative text in "Definition of the STUN and STUNS URI" section.</t>
<t>Reordered ABNF production references in the text to match the ABNF definition order.</t>
<t>Added a design note explaining the reason for duplicating the ABNF productions from RFC 3986.</t>
<t>Updated Acknowledgment section.</t>
<t>Updated Implementation Status section with new template.</t>
<t>Addressed several nits (spelling, grammar, etc.)</t>
</list>
</t>
</section>
</section>
</back>
</rfc>
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 19:36:17 |