[Standards] Do we need STUN?

[Matt Tucker]

> Please stop this nonsense and stop trying to drive a wedge 
> between XMPP and established wisdom. A lot of the mailing 
> list are agreeing with me here. You really are very misguided.

Ahh, nice. Peter and I were discussing over beer during the DEVCON how
long it's been since a good series of flames happened on the lists.

There's one part of your message I have to object to:

> All you're doing here is coming up with myriad ways to put a lot of
people off the adoption of 
> Jingle by raising the cost and effort by forcing people into
developing alternative implementations 
> of these existing technologies.

To imply that there's total consensus on ICE and Jingle and that we're
simply trying to gum up the works is just not correct. What I see is:

 * Every client author I know is having tons of problems getting their
head around Jingle (hence the bootstrapping discussion). That makes any
possible significant simplifications worthwhile to me.  
 * There's not even agreement on the proper number of states in Jingle
yet (Peter's discussion about the possibilities of simplifying).
 * There are basically no good Open Source STUN server implementations.
There are no Open Source TURN server implementations that I can find.
Yes, they may be pretty easy to write -- my point is simply that it's a
bit early too call this a solved problem that the whole industry has
embraced. If that were truly the case, we'd see more bits out there.

At the end of the day, we'll implement whatever is the community
consensus. At the same time, it seems pre-mature to rail against
protocol ideas that haven't even been documented yet. Why don't we keep
the discussion open for a few weeks and objectively evaluate new ideas?
If STUN and TURN are the real deal, they'll easily stand up to any
alternatives.

Regards,
-Matt