[Standards] Do we need STUN?
dafydd.harries at collabora.co.uk
Fri Mar 9 01:08:36 UTC 2007
Ar 09/03/2007 am 09:38, ysgrifennodd Евгений Храмцов:
> 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.
I don't think it's fair to say they're "very different". My understanding is
that an RFC3489 implementation can parse RFC3489bis packets, though adding
support for the new attributes, notably FINGERPRINT would be advantageous.
More information about the Standards