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

[Roni Even <[e-mail]>]

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? 
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?
>