[Standards] namespace versioning for XEP-0176
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Dec 16 16:01:38 UTC 2015
On 12/15/15 1:16 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2015 04:04, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at stpeter.im
> <mailto: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>
> >> <mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im <mailto:stpeter at stpeter.im>>> wrote:
> >> Folks, I am working on revisions  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. :)
I needed to get accustomed to the idea. :-)
More information about the Standards