[Standards] Do we need STUN?
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...
More information about the Standards