Skip to main content

Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers
RFC 7065

Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -07)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-25 for -07)
I agree with Pete's comments about the ABNF, and share his dismay that these documents copy significant bits of standard ABNF productions from the URI document.  I think that's a Bad Idea.

Comment for the document shepherd: Thanks for a good, useful writeup!

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-26 for -07)
I agree with Pete's observation about restating ABNF in this document.

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-28)
[3.1: ABNF changed to reference 3986]

3.2: I suggest changing "MUST be" to "is" in both cases. The MUSTs are gratuitous. Then get rid of the reference to 2119. It's unnecessary.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-23 for -07)
1.  Introduction

   [RFC5928] defines a resolution mechanism to convert a secure flag, a
   host name or IP address, an eventually empty port, and an eventually
   empty transport to a list of IP address, port, and TURN transport
   tuples.

I'm not understanding the use of "eventually empty" in this paragraph, and that's not a term I saw in [RFC5928]. Is it familiar to those skilled in the art of TURN?

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-27)
Thanks for handling my discuss and comments.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-25 for -07)
In 3.1, last paragraph:

   The <host>, <port> and <transport> components are passed without

The ABNF says turn-host and turn-port, not host and port.   This is not a major nit, but it would be good to be consistent here.   This inconsistency is repeated further in the document.