XEP-0371: migrate from RFC 5245 to 8445

[Ri0n]

Changes:

• RFC 5245 is replaced with RFC 8445
• Introduced ice2 transport attribute for backward compatibility, same as in RFC 8445
• Clarified ICE restart procedure
• Make remote-candidate MUST when urn:ietf:rfc:3264 is advertised by the responder
• Send remote-candidate for all components at once to be better compatible with SIP gateways.
• Wrong reference to RFC 6455 was replaced with correct one: RFC 6544
• Allow gathering-complete element to be combined with remaining candidates

[dwd]

Paging @stpeter

[Ri0n]

ping

[stpeter]

These changes seem fine (I might send the author an email or provide a PR with a few editorial suggestions). Because we're adding the 'ice2' attribute, I wonder if we need a namespace bump - especially because aggressive nomination is no longer supported (however, 'ice2' defaults to false, so this might not be necessary).

[Ri0n]

ping @horazont

[horazont]

@Ri0n Eh, sorry, this slipped through. Fun times.

So, problem here: you added another commit after the approval. In addition, the commit edits the already-existing version block, which is not allowed.

I would suggest that you remove that commit and create a separate PR for the gathering changes there.

[Ri0n]

I was asked in @xsf (IIRC by you @horazont) to add another commit to change the date for changelog. I did.

Do you mean I have to split this one into two? First one - all the changes but without "changes" part and another other just "changes"?

[Ri0n]

Looks like force-push showed wrong history here on github

[horazont]

@Ri0n The one problem is that the newest commit must be the one adding the revision block, because that is the one which will be tagged to constitute the release of the new version. So you could squash them. The other problem is that the commit where you changed the date does more than just changing the date: c589749

So this is what confuses me; and this seems to be another non-editorial change we should ask the original authors about. Then again, I’m still pretty tired so I wonder if I’m missing something here.

[Ri0n]

Probably I did git --amend instead of a new commit. To be honest I don't remember why,
But those extra changes in the latest commit were definitely there before approval.

[horazont]

@Ri0n Thanks, that makes sense. I’ll clean that up during the merge next week.