On 12/15/15 1:16 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:

On 15 Dec 2015 04:04, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
 >
 > 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]>
 >> <mailto:[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?
 >

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

Yes.

 > 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. :-)

Peter


_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________

Reply via email to