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

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

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?
> >
>
>