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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, David,

On Jun 21, 2017 09:42, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:

I’m fine with inserting the date, but perhaps more importantly we should
say “the pattern was picked for the trivial reason that…” to allay concerns
about people not understanding…


That works for me.

And I'm enjoying the idea of a guy from the 800s being immortalized in an
RFC in 2017, so please remember that I liked you folks saying it in your
draft ...

Spencer, who should probably be scanning the list of feast days for folks
with four-byte names that are valid in hex - there can't be many more, can
there? :D


> On Jun 21, 2017, at 10:20 , Warren Kumari <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I wasn't clear.
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2017 08:16, "David Singer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 19, 2017, at 16:51 , Spencer Dawkins
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Not sure that saying “It says BEDE because the first draft was written on
>> May 25th” would be any clearer.  Does it matter?
>>
>>
>> I meant "the first version of this specification was written on May 25th,
>> the feast day of the Venerable Bede".
>>
>
> Well, aren't I a silly bunny? That works, maintains the "joke", and is
clear...
>
> W
>
>
>> Does it matter? Probably not.
>>
>> Do I hope we don't signal to readers of IETF specifications that they can
>> skip the parts they don't understand? I do ...
>>
>> But do the right thing, of course.
>>
>> Spencer
>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> David Singer
>> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>   ---maf

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.