[Standards] namespace versioning for XEP-0176

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at stpeter.im
Tue Dec 15 04:04:16 UTC 2015


On 12/11/15 2:56 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
>
> On 11 December 2015 at 03:56, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im
> <mailto: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?
>
>
> 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.

So we'd leave XEP-0176 as it is ("Jingle ICE-UDP Transport Method"), and 
publish a new specification that is substantially the same but that 
supports both UDP and TCP candidates ("Jingle ICE Transport Method") and 
that deprecates/obsoletes XEP-0176. Correct?

I'm not completely averse to that.

Peter



More information about the Standards mailing list