On 11 Dec 2015, at 09:56, Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 11 December 2015 at 03:56, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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. /K
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
