Missing RFC supports

[Neustradamus]

Can you add missing RFCs?

There are for STUN:

• RFC 3489 - "classic" STUN
• RFC 5389 - base "new" STUN specs
• RFC 5769 - test vectors for STUN protocol testing
• RFC 5780 - NAT behavior discovery support
• RFC 7350 - DTLS as Transport for STUN
• RFC 7443 - ALPN support for STUN & TURN
• RFC 7635 - oAuth third-party TURN/STUN authorization
• RFC 8489 - base "new" STUN specs

[jselbie]

RFCs 3489, 5389, 5679, and 5780 are fully supported today.
As for 7443/7635 and few others.  I have been wanting to support TLS/DTLS so some time now.  Some new open source libraries make this much more feasible than before.   I've just been waiting for a business need to do it. Basically, waiting for someone to come along make the case:  "implement this so it will interop correctly with this other standard or popular thing".

[Neustradamus]

@jselbie: Thanks for your reply!

I have updated my publication and specify last STUN version.
RFC 7350/RFC 7443/RFC 7635/RFC 8489

Hope improvements :)

[Zxilly]

I'm wondering where this is going, RFC 8489 defines how the stun protocol works over DTLS.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8489#section-6.2.1

[jselbie]

It all depends on if WebRTC adopts DTLS for STUN. Has this happened?

…

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 4:35 AM Zxilly ***@***.***> wrote: I'm wondering where this is going, RFC 8489 defines how the stun protocol works over DTLS. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8489#section-6.2.1 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#34 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHNSF24UALSJ7YZVJVWFXDY4J6J3AVCNFSM4MLXAYU2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TEMBUGI2TCOBSG4YA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Zxilly]

https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/334743/6

Someone works on that, but it has stopped for a while.