On 12/11/15 2:56 AM, Dave Cridland 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? 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 _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
