Subject: Last Call: <draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-05.txt> (Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers) to Proposed

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:15:19 +0100

> From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
> Reply-to: [email-masked]
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-05.txt> (Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers) to Proposed
> X-C5I-RSN: 1/0/934/11413/12177
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
> - 'Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN) Uniform Resource Identifiers'
> <draft-petithuguenin-behave-turn-uris-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
> [email-masked] mailing lists by 2013-08-16. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>
> This document specifies the syntax of Uniform Resource Identifier
> (URI) schemes for the Traversal Using Relays around NAT (TURN)
> protocol. It defines two URI schemes to provision the TURN
> Resolution Mechanism [RFC5928].
>

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.
  be considered.

#g
--