Re: [Cellar] [ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification] EBML ID 0x80 is marked invalid/reserved but it's used in Matroska (#407)

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 18 May 2021 17:51 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cellar@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 803393A1AF9 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:51:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XlS3zu4_rZl5 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92d.google.com (mail-ua1-x92d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5773A1AFF for <cellar@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92d.google.com with SMTP id f1so3495147uaj.10 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g1jiuVFhMCsDKXIe1BlHg5XN0ofAUj58MqXALQOz4bA=; b=l/C4Sct2EerM+m3cAHgLze/ZyZct1McK5o18sU8YFf8bFql5s6X18gJPKad7JoCX7O isxYGqP+zkoifkxrvGpak4PYciK7tXV/5JFe8b3Cs6iSaqgJ1yQLmNFo9unIDc6ePWOA mZyDDmcnEGlY3UulXnj97YDbEvArTMoFdmVF8mzX+G4rAAcvQoUxfNGZsD1jKPvdRs4V Rvnzv8uk1YwL3Hp9mHLkbu1qCBOqwYsDeJSCljz8e3kuDcoffT0TpgOaqGsApNz1BAUD lud89vZbm//pAj0fNOpcZFMBVW/ObvSfbca9o8KZPo6+q7vHKHcCnvhYHPVIFLq36u96 RO6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g1jiuVFhMCsDKXIe1BlHg5XN0ofAUj58MqXALQOz4bA=; b=k7Mmd39QVtIc9lo1gTauDpBONzVmUEbgR48Obl0/uvL1GcoH/eiUio4+CfusUuTr82 W+7DzVrAldhSvFSJGJqQJlNa7VKQKxadw/p02sfP7pcPfA2wK7ZzPDHWvYqyBd0pgYRE PIuwTgaYIGPRF5qzEH93otEsntdBdMm6WIrZN4ntMv0FfcDOhQQvq7kzOuvQKnx3Lp95 6X9JCg6EBOzLHqGk2b4NqnFhNO8cnTzuMpD6AyFw3hC8tl+w+46Mp7+XvCe6NiWKmi44 Xj5rYPEstrtsA77VV9cg1p/nmIWpqq72NPzIXdZeJ9wc22pjWqzbsvw69D67/rIDeQno CV3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533CafYZl1PSlMFSfJMZcbb0BqV8NodzRNitkT/o4NSXGhLmHVTX GDgLTdbYKUXnWa+kwFh+TbAp7w1L0t5T5qaXV10=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0GV0x2ZQdc8lF8iAE32F7vyP9D4cwIM8FmX1RnwgzHzs6VTI+rfayvv4KgFCLn+JEdTFsTnYtZkwtxq9MYf0=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:42a7:: with SMTP id j36mr7999065uaj.87.1621360276823; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification/issues/407@github.com> <21441.1620656178@localhost> <CAKKJt-e5PtTZM=j=Cn_YBPW87ag+oui7mGx=wuxt0JU1KY3SLQ@mail.gmail.com> <206103c0-9265-127b-6a5b-48da92fe3c9d@matroska.org> <CAKKJt-fnetcjQzvxhp9MjASujBNGAKwdf39bUhSqSL=4h2vy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-fnetcjQzvxhp9MjASujBNGAKwdf39bUhSqSL=4h2vy9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:51:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwagXdHdrssJtUBAVXY=ZJrVxkvnc-fyW-7jaoocd9391g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org>, Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005a60ad05c29e5bb1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/-hvP7Kdj8JN_QMPOWonUD3zUl2U>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] [ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification] EBML ID 0x80 is marked invalid/reserved but it's used in Matroska (#407)
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cellar/>
List-Post: <mailto:cellar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar>, <mailto:cellar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 17:51:34 -0000

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 11:29 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Steve,
>
> (adding Murray to the CC list, because I'm invoking his wisdom on the
> question we're talking about)
>
> On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 8:42 AM Steve Lhomme <slhomme@matroska.org> wrote:
>
>> What would be an EBML-bis document ? A revision to the RFC comparable to
>> the errata or something that would result in a new RFC ?
>>
>
> This is always the question, when we have accepted Errata for a published
> RFC - does the working group publish
>
>    - an RFC that only contains the sections that the fix for the Errata
>    touches (so, the new RFC Updates the previous RFC), or
>    - an RFC that contains all the sections of the original RFC, whether
>    they contain fixes for the Errata or not (so, the new RFC Obsoletes the
>    previous RFC)
>
> Guidance from the IESG about what is preferred has changed over time, so I
> wanted Murray to be aware that the question was coming up in CELLAR, in
> case he needed to tell us what the current answer is.
>
> Does that make sense?
>

An "updates" or "bis" document just to resolve one or two errata might
raise some eyebrows.  How many do you want to handle?  Is there any pending
update you could fold into such a document?  Or to put it another way,
what's wrong with leaving it as a small number of errata for now?

Whether you do a full "bis" document or an "updates" depends on how big the
aggregate change(s) you have in mind are.  I'm happy to be an advocate for
either; just depends on how big the final "diff" to the existing document
would be.

-MSK