[Standards] updated STUN discovery proposal

[Thiago Camargo]

Sorry, I don't agree...
If you just want a STUn to get a public IP or NAT type...You dont need
ANYWAY an authorization.

Sad but true...

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Sean Egan
Sent: sexta-feira, 20 de abril de 2007 14:13
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Standards] updated STUN discovery proposal

On 4/20/07, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> Perhaps it makes sense to differentiate between advertising the mere
> server list and STUN allocation. That said, if authentication might be
> necessary for STUN binding as well, then we might want to issue
> credentials with each request, and that would argue against simply
> pushing this information out via pubsub.

It doesn't make too much sense to separate them out. ICE requires you
to do both a binding request and an allocate request to your STUN
server. And if you think you might need to do a STUN binding request
at all, you should be using ICE. So, there's really no case where you
want your STUN servers' addresses but not auth credentials.