URI Reviewers,
 
As a component of the RTCWEB work we are trying to define and register the TURN and STUN URI schemes. As part of that work 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) in their current STUN/TURN server configuration code and is in the process of being implemented by Mozilla (Firefox)]. I have left the below thread to provide a bit of context on these drafts. These drafts can be found here:

TURN URI:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris 

STUN URI:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri

The TURN URI scheme was first proposed several years ago and has already been through uri-review back in late 2009 (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uri-review/current/msg01063.html). The current TURN URI proposal is a result of that discussion.  The STUN URI came about more recently but is intended to be complementary.
 
We kindly request that you review the proposed URI schemes.
 
We look forward to your feedback.

Thanks!

Gonzalo

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
> Subject: Re: TURN/STUN URI Drafts
> Date: January 3, 2013 11:23:28 AM EST
> To: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
> Cc: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>, Gonzalo Salgueiro <gsalguei@cisco.com>, "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>, Paul Jones <paulej@packetizer.com>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
> 
> Happy New Year to you as well.
> 
> You should probably first send these drafts to uri-review@ietf.org to see if there everyone is OK. Assuming that's true (from a quick peek, there's nothing obviously horrible), either Barry or I can AD sponsor the documents. But I'd like to hear what Graham and the other uri-review folks have to say.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> pr
> 
> On 1/2/13 11:23 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> Happy New Year to everybody.
>> 
>> I did not see any progress on this topic since this email.  Would it be
>> possible to have a status update on what is blocking this, and how I can help
>> to make this happen?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> On 11/05/2012 11:50 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>>   
>>> Hi Pete,
>>> 
>>> so, per our conversation in the welcome reception, please have a look at
>>> the email below and let the authors know how to proceed (i.e., whether or
>>> not they need a standards track RFC).
>>> 
>>> If I need to take care of something (e.g., AD sponsoring a draft), let me
>>> know as well.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Gonzalo
>>> 
>>> On 04/11/2012 11:44 PM, Gonzalo Salgueiro wrote:
>>>     
>>>> Gonzalo/Pete -
>>>> 
>>>> As requested, this is the follow up email regarding the TURN/STUN URI
>>>> drafts that require AD-sponsoring:
>>>> 
>>>> TURN URI:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris STUN URI:
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri
>>>> 
>>>> To provide a bit of context this all began with Marc Petit-Hugenin six
>>>> years ago attempting to standardize the TURN URI scheme in the BEHAVE WG.
>>>> At that time there were no applications of this on the Internet, so it
>>>> was deemed premature and remained a draft. Recently, the need for a
>>>> standard URI scheme for TURN and STUN has arisen in the context of
>>>> RTCWeb.  Cullen (on Cc:) pointed this out and under his guidance we
>>>> produced the drafts referenced above. 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) in their current STUN/TURN server
>>>> configuration code and is in the process of being implemented by Mozilla
>>>> (Firefox).
>>>> 
>>>> Over the years the TURN draft (and much later the STUN draft) have
>>>> received feedback from both the BEHAVE and RTCWEB WGs and we feel they
>>>> are nearing completion. We certainly would welcome any additional
>>>> feedback but more practically in the context being progressed within the
>>>> IETF to RFC status.  Please let us know how we can facilitate this and if
>>>> there is anything we can do make this as expeditious and painless for you
>>>> guys as possible.
>>>> 
>>>> Sincere thanks for all your help and guidance.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> Gonzalo
>>>> 
>>>>       
>>>     
>> 
>> - -- Marc Petit-Huguenin
>> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
>> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
>> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>> 
>> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQ5G0mAAoJECnERZXWan7EP6IP/0eylpav+SHT3DzVrZ6IvdYr
>> zkBSb+8osVPHYXkC8BXHBE5cT/9SKYvfLRMMMX4X92ILIGpeVeWF9SDMNuxGAGsG
>> QIE3gWZErhrF3m3JBkbHxG+un6IW0DPlKBGj4/ZL3+eVueMQVL+lxIPyGorgwJEi
>> YAjvxuTzmrT3NjujC2qPqlPqphdlq/bJK89sSCsH7pY68THZUIcWTSIhzq446NFB
>> B+utwPoPI2Rubyx9AR6uMWSPAjB7x5uGzE2DP8B5ZU55qq4iAGPup6qFGHOWHvXE
>> q9WoqX0zXjNFNYEIC/DLYZI99WCPN0Ouj5GYtZklHK7cKcngknNNw5T8tz6jPBj9
>> kiQbC2YjoXVZ9Gk3B/XAdk4BBDz6jDzo+q1N0WkgCIwGITn6xg9tOIVei6CwgC2i
>> mDXT6HwVgXHjSwXYNBkRTuTmUZlJmd3A5bl8wdx3XVe0dtcTEkJAdk6F/ScBFXz1
>> Ah2XB8OdqaCd5YyBbdYXMEcDmztsS9THdVhSd3IlHmAtGtj0nYyvkLuKdKsBfrCM
>> bKkfuvpjLOFk8kmkEu0zgtsGA9JA2ROkk0nKeMoJhBkSAJY4Y8qMSxWoJbegyJ5C
>> k8TePgYMGO8aROFI6+iC0+ekcinc3CPeen/MnneNH1t9+Zvk00/X9t8bCSizLLFt
>> mDdyOAv6Stfiax/sMFHa
>> =gCwm
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>   
> 
> -- 
> Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
> Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
>