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

[Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <[e-mail]>]

On Jul 28, 2013, at 4:15 PM, <[e-mail]> <[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?). 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.
> 

That sounds good to me!

> 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. 
> 

Yeah, I somewhat assumed that,but it's definitely up for discussion. Since I'm not all that familiar with all the process, please do let me know if you rather have some extra items added to the slides and I'll gladly do so.


Cheers,

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects