PROTO questionnaire for: draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt
To be Published as: Proposed Standard
Prepared by: Dan Wing (email@example.com) 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
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
http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html) 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.
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
(http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html) 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, firstname.lastname@example.org) 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
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ 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 http://tools.ietf.org/tools/bap/abnf.cgi