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

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

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…

> 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.