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

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

Hi, David,

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:07 AM, David Singer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> May 25th is right, if we care.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar_of_saints_(Episcopal_Church)>
>

Do the right thing ;-)

Spencer


>
>
> > 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.
>
>