URI Scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol
draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-08

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol' to Proposed Standard (draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-08.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol'
  (draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-08.txt) as Proposed Standard

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri/


   (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
        document?


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:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01089.html

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://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/ and
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.


         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
(http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0166.html) and XEP-167
(http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0167.html).

Level of maturity:   Beta.
Coverage:   Implements draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-01 without IPv6.
Licensing:   BSD 3-clauses license.
Contact:   https://code.google.com/p/chromium/

URL:   https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/libjingle/source/talk/app/webrtc/peerconnection.cc

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.
Contact:   http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/
URL:   http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/file/4ff1e574e509/media/webrtc/signaling/src/peerconnection/PeerConnectionImpl.cpp

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:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg03476.html

and also the BEHAVE WG mailing list:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg10047.html

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

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01651.html

         Personnel

         Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
         Director?

Dan Wing (BEHAVE WG co-chair, dwing@cisco.com) is the Document
Shepherd.  Gonzalo Camarillo is the Responsible AD.