From: The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Reply-To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sender: <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> (URI Scheme for
Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'URI Scheme for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol'
<draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-05.txt> as Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2013-08-16. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
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.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri/ballot/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
As IANA designated expert for reviewing URI scheme registrations, I've been
asked to approve this scheme for registration. If there is IETF consensus to
publish this document, it is clear to me that the scheme should be registered.
But, in a personal capacity, not as designated reviewer, I have to ask *why*
this needs to be a URI. As far as I can tell, it is intended for use only in
very constrained environments, where there seems to be little value in having an
identifier that can appear in all the contexts where a URI may be recognized.
The criteria for new URI schemes in http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395 include:
"New URI schemes SHOULD have clear utility to the broad Internet community,
beyond that available with already registered URI schemes."
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4395#section-2.1
This "utility to the broader community" is not clear to me, but I don't fully
understand the intended scope of this protocol, so I could be missing something.
So, in declaring consensus for this specification, I would request that this
aspect at least be considered.
...
Further, according to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389 it appears that there
are security considerations with regard to the STUN protocol that it should not
be used in isolation:
[[
Classic STUN also had a security vulnerability -- attackers could
provide the client with incorrect mapped addresses under certain
topologies and constraints, and this was fundamentally not solvable
through any cryptographic means. Though this problem remains with
this specification, those attacks are now mitigated through the use
of more complete solutions that make use of STUN.
For these reasons, this specification obsoletes RFC 3489, and instead
describes STUN as a tool that is utilized as part of a complete NAT
traversal solution.
]]
-- http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389#section-2
It seems to me that creating a URI for STUN could encourage its use in
environments outside the "more complete solutions that make use of STUN". This
seems to be further reason that STUN[S] should not be a URI scheme.
I have also suggested that, if registered, the URI scheme registration should
carries a "health warning" to this effect, and that it is not suitable for
general use that is not part of a "complete NAT traversal solution". But I also
recognize that I do not fully grasp the security implications, and that if those
that do know better can agree that there is no potential for creating security
risks here, this suggestion may be unnecessary.
#g
--