[Standards] namespace versioning for XEP-0176

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Fri Dec 11 10:40:12 UTC 2015


On 11 December 2015 at 10:07, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:

> On 11 Dec 2015, at 09:56, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 11 December 2015 at 03:56, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>
> wrote:
>
>> Folks, I am working on revisions [1] to XEP-0176 to bring it up to date
>> with both RFC 6544 (ice-tcp) and draft-ietf-ice-trickle. Therefore, the
>> next version of this specification will add support for several new
>> candidate types ("tcp-active", "tcp-passive", and "tcp-so"). To prevent
>> confusion, I am thinking it would be best to change the XML namespace as
>> follows...
>>
>> old: "urn:xmpp:jingle:transports:ice-udp:1"
>>
>> new: "urn:xmpp:jingle:transports:ice:2"
>>
>> That is, because ICE can now be used to negotiate a TCP connection and
>> not just a UDP association, I propose that we generalize XEP-0176 and thus
>> change the transport name from "ice-udp" to "ice", while at the same time
>> bumping the version from "1" to "2".
>>
>> Does anyone have concerns with this approach?
>>
>
> It sounds sensible enough to me, from my position of ignorance.
>
> I admit I'm partly speaking as devil's advocate here - but I'm conscious
> that there is relatively wide deployment of XEP-0176, and I'm wondering if
> it might be better to create a new specification and deprecate this one in
> favour of it. Accessing old versions of specifications is hard, and if the
> changes are substantial, both specification versions will probably co-exist
> for some time to come.
>
>
> They’re available at a stable URL, though, so it’d be fairly
> straightforward to put a link to the old version in the new version, if
> that’s a concern.
>
>
Yes, and maybe that's good enough. I just remember we had a degree of
confusion around the time we changed XEP-0115 to include cryptographic
hashes, and most clients were sending without. I don't want to make this
stuff any harder than it is already.

Dave.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20151211/935d834b/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list