I jested before, but the more I think about it, the more I
find the 'simple'
in the STUN name irksome.
STUN now is really (potentially) STUN + TURN of old. I
don't see how that
combination can be called simple. Granted, it's not hugely
complex, but it
is not HTTP 0.9 either! Between the two of them there are
14 different
types of message and 24 different attributes.
Further, STUN on it's own isn't much good. In reality the
STUN base specs
are just the message definitions, whereas ICE is how to use
those messages.
Together there is 185 pages of documentation, which I don't
consider to be
simple. (SIP is 269 pages and I don't think we can argue
that is simple.
Thus STUN + usage is of comparable complexity; to document
at least.)
But the thing I hate most about it though is the marketing
spin feel of it!
Use this and your teeth will be whiter than white and it
won't cost you a
penny!
Actually, I think the word 'simple' should be avoided in all
acronyms as a
matter of policy. Even if something starts out simple, if
it's useful it
gets added to and evolves into something that is no longer
simple. Is SMTP
still simple?
Thus, I put to the floor that the acronym for STUN should
expand to:
Session Traversal Underneath NAT,
and further request that statements such as "STUN is a
simple ... protocol"
be removed from the spec. (Just use "STUN is a ...
protocol").
Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-kno
w-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave ietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
|