[Standards] namespace versioning for XEP-0176

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Dec 15 08:16:16 UTC 2015


On 15 Dec 2015 04:04, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

Yes, although I'd suggest we add text to 176 to point at the new document,
etc.

> I'm not completely averse to that.

Not sure how you could phrase that any closer to actual disagreement. :)

>
> Peter
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20151215/d6180db7/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list