Shepherd writeup

PROTO questionnaire for: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt

To be Published as: Proposed Standard

Prepared by: Dan Wing ( on 11 July 2013

   (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,

       Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  

       Why is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated  

       in the title page header?

This document is requested to be published as a Proposed

Standards. This is the proper type of RFC as it requires IANA

registrations for a registry that requires a standards track RFC.

This RFC type is indicated on the title page.

    (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement

        Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. 

        Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for 

        approved documents. The approval announcement contains the 

        following sections:

        Technical Summary:

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.



        Working Group Summary:

        Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was

        it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy

        about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the


This all began six years ago attempting to standardize the TURN URI

scheme in the BEHAVE WG.  The information in this document was

originally a part of a BEHAVE WG item (now RFC 5928) and went through

WGLC (in 2009).  For reference, see:

At that time there were no applications of this on the Internet, so it

was deemed premature and the TURN URI standardization component was

split off into its own document and remained a draft.  Recently, the

need for a standard URI scheme for TURN and STUN has arisen in the

context of RTCWeb.  Cullen Jennings pointed this out and consequently

this resurrected the dormant TURN URI draft (now

html/draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-04) and produced this new

companion document standardizing the STUN URI scheme.

These drafts are now normatively referenced by the W3C

( and and have already

been implemented in Google (Chrome) and Mozilla (Firefox) in their

current STUN/TURN server configuration code.

The narrow scope of the document didn't warrant a WG milestone in

RTCWEB, so RAI and APPs ADs (Gonzalo Camarillo and Pete Resnick)

agreed Individual/AD sponsoring was the proper course of action for

the document and agreed to progress it.

         Document Quality

         Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a 

         significant number of vendors indicated their plan to 

         implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that 

         merit special mention as having done a thorough review, 

         e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a 

         conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If 

         there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, 

         what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type 

         review, on what date was the request posted?

As indicated in the document, the following implementations exist

(using draft-sheffer-running-code template):

Name:   libjingle 0.7.1

Description: Libjingle is a set of components provided by Google to

implement Jingle protocols XEP-166

( and XEP-167


Level of maturity:   Beta.

Coverage:   Implements draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-01 without IPv6.

Licensing:   BSD 3-clauses license.



Name:   Firefox Aurora 21

Description:   Mozilla Firefox is a free and open source web browser.

Level of maturity:   Beta.

Coverage:   Implements draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-03.

Licensing:   Mozilla Public License, v. 2.0.



Google and Mozilla have already implemented this draft and it is

expected that other browsers will also implement this draft.

This draft has benefited from considerable review.  The current

document was sent for review in the IETF RTCWEB and W3C WebRTC

mailing-lists and has been presented at RTCWEB WG meetings:

and also the BEHAVE WG mailing list:

It has also benefited from expert review on the uri-review mailing-list:


         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area


Dan Wing (BEHAVE WG co-chair, is the Document

Shepherd.  Gonzalo Camarillo is the Responsible AD.

     (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was 

         performed by the Document Shepherd.  If this version of 

         the document is not ready for publication, please explain 

         why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.

Document shepherd considers this document ready for IESG review and

has reviewed idnits output, ABNF, and IANA considerations sections.



     (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth

         or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

Document shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth of the


     (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular 

         or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational 

         complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? 

         If so, describe the review that took place.


    (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document 

        Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director

        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or 

        she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, 

        or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any

        event, if the interested community has discussed those issues 

        and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, 

        detail those concerns here.

There are no specific concerns or issues. 

    (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR

        disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions 

        of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.




    (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

        If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR


No IPR disclosures filed.

    (9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this

        document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few 

        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested 

        community as a whole understand and agree with it? 

Consensus represents the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with

others being silent.  No one has expressed concerns about its


    (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme 

         discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in 

         separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It  

         should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is 

         publicly available.) 


    (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this

         document. (See and the 

         Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;

         this check needs to be thorough.

The document passes idnits 2.12.17.  

    (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review

         criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type 


This document has been expert reviewed on the uri-review mailing-list:

    (13) Have all references within this document been identified as

         either normative or informative?


    (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready 

         for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? 

         If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their 


No.  The references are split between normative and informative, all

the normative references are for RFCs.  None are downward references.

    (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

         If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director

         in the Last Call procedure. 


    (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any 

         existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,

         listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? 

         If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, 

         explain why, and point to the part of the document where the 

         relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. 

         If this information is not in the document, explain why the 

         interested community considers it unnecessary.


    (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations 

         section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body

         of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the

         document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations 

         in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries 

         have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA 

         registries include a detailed specification of the initial 

         contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future

         registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new 

         registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

The document shepherd has reviewed the IANA considerations section and

has confirmed that the registration is correct.  Additionally, the

IANA considerations section has been specifically expert reviewed for

completeness and accuracy on the uri-review mailing list.

    (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for 

         future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG

         would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new 


This document defines no new IANA registries. 

    (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate  

         sections of the document written in a formal language, such as 

         XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

The ABNF was verified using