[Standards] Do we need STUN?

Евгений Храмцов xramtsov at gmail.com
Fri Mar 9 00:38:18 UTC 2007

2007/3/9, Sean Egan <seanegan at gmail.com>:
> If you want to convince us that STUN is unfairly complex, you're going
> to need to provide some examples of this complexity.
No problem. Can you tell me why should we re-invent another packet format
since we already have ASN.1 for binary protocols?
By the way, I didn't see implementations of the RFC3489bis. RFC3489bis and
RFC3489 are very different protocols.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070309/6837129b/attachment.html>

More information about the Standards mailing list