Re: [Stox] Mapping for media signaling: still about the scope

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 7/28/13 4:15 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi Peter, Philipp,
> 
> Philipp Hancke wrote,
>> 
>> Am 28.07.2013 12:20, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre: [...]
>>> I like that approach. The Jingle XEPs already define SDP mappings
>>> for the base use cases, and that content could be moved to the
>>> stox-media I-D. If additional features are defined in SIP, SDP,
>>> or Jingle (trickle-ICE, BUNDLE, multistream, etc.) then we can
>>> specify those in incremental extensions.
>> 
>> Right. The problem on the XSF side is that this mapping is
>> currently spread over (from the top of my head) XEPs 0166, 0167,
>> 0176, (0177 doesn't bother mapping), 0293, 0294 and 0320. This is
>> something that needs to be more centralized anyway and the
>> stox-media draft might be the normative place to do this.
>> 
> 
> It sounds to me then that the STOX WG should: - Consolidate the
> mappings for all stable specs and features into the current -media
> document and aim to publish it as an RFC according to the current
> charter, i.e. deliver it to the IESG (hopefully) already before IETF
> 88. The value of stabilizing and publishing that document would be
> that the mappings would be found in one place. - Start, first as
> individual (non-WG) drafts, incremental extensions for the relevant
> new features (mentioned above). Perhaps one draft is enough for all
> of the listed ones if their timeline is roughly identical and there
> is interest to cover all of them. That draft would evolve as the
> actual extensions in IETF and XSF develop, and would get published as
> an RFC around the same time as them (next year?). 

I think that is a reasonable approach.

> If things progress
> well, we could adopt that draft as a STOX WG item around IETF 88. I
> believe it does fit content-wise ("mapping for media signaling") to
> our charter, we just need to create an additional milestone for it. I
> don't know if we should keep the WG active for just one document, but
> given the overhead of creating new WGs etc., I think that would make
> sense.

I am not fully sure about keeping the WG around, but I leave such
decisions up to the chairs and ADs. ;-)

> Saul's slides for next Thursday
> (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2243619/stox-ietf87.pdf) seem to
> assume that approach. The chairs can perhaps create one-slider to be
> more explicit about the plan and scope.

That sounds helpful!

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/