Re: [AVTCORE] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: (with COMMENT)

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

OK, will put May 25th 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: יום ה 22 יוני 2017 16:08
> To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> Cc: Roni Even; The IESG; [e-mail]; avtcore-
> [e-mail]; Magnus Westerlund; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: (with
> COMMENT)
> 
> May 25th is right, if we care.
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Episcopal_Church)>
> 
> 
> > On Jun 22, 2017, at 8:56 , Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Roni,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Roni Even <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > Spencer,
> > According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede the date is
> > May 26th according to
> http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=574 May 25th and in
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02384a.htm it is May 27th So is it good
> to write a date in the RFC?
> >
> > I'm impressed. I was expecting problems with Julian/Gregorian calendar
> differences, but not what you found ...
> >
> > If David's OK with putting the date he observes in the RFC (as "the first
> version of this specification was written on May 25th, when the author was
> observing the feast day of the Venerable Bede", or whatever the actual date
> was), I'd be OK with that.
> >
> > Given that we're even discussing this awesome side reference on
> Facebook now, you folks could drop the whole point, but that would be sad
> :D ...
> >
> > Spencer
> >
> > Roni
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: יום ב 19 יוני 2017 23:51
> > > To: The IESG
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; Magnus Westerlund;
> > > avtcore- [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12:
> > > (with
> > > COMMENT)
> > >
> > > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > > draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis-12: Yes
> > >
> > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> > > all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> > > cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Please refer to
> > > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >
> > >
> > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5285-bis/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > COMMENT:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > >
> > > I like it. I did have a couple of non-blocking questions.
> > >
> > > I couldn't parse this sentence.
> > >
> > >   "A transmitter may be aware that
> > >    an intermediary may add RTP header extensions in this case, the
> > >    transmitter SHOULD use two-byte form."
> > >
> > > I think
> > >
> > >    In the one-byte header form of extensions, the 16-bit value required
> > >    by the RTP specification for a header extension, labeled in the RTP
> > >    specification as "defined by profile", MUST have the fixed bit
> > >    pattern 0xBEDE (the first version of this specification was written
> > >    on the feast day of the Venerable Bede).
> > >
> > > is flipping awesome, but likely impenetrable for folks who haven't
> > > studied English history in the 600s and 700s. Perhaps a reference,
> > > or, more likely, just say "May 25" so it's not a mystery?
> > >
> >
> >
> 
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.