Re: BoF request: STUN Control Usage

----- Original Message From: "David Barrett"
<dbarrettquinthar.com>

> Reducing chattiness of STUN sounds great, but the
amount of energy it'll
> take to not only standardize the protocol but push
standard implementation
> into a significant portion of the world's NATs seems
high.  If we could
> measure all that energy into man-hours, I wonder what
better way those 
> hours
> might be spent?

Alas, IMO, nobody has a better idea of where such man-hours
could be spent.

I think STUN control is a small incremental piece of work
and it makes sense 
to do it while the expertise is still present in the behave
WG and all the 
various issues and interactions are current in peoples'
minds.

Also, for better or worse, things like STUN, ICE, outbound
are all 
inter-related and it seems sensible to deliver them as a
package rather than 
trying to bake one and then move onto the next.  At least
then, if, in the 
unlikely event that ICE requires a tweak to allow for STUN
control, then it 
can be done.

Finally, it's seemed obvious to me from day 1 that 'the' NAT
would be the 
ideal location for the STUN server.  So, IMO, the work
should go ahead.

Regards,

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
for XML Schema to C++ data binding visit
 http://www.codalogic.co
m/lmx/
=============================================




_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behaveietf.org
https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave