Re: [Cellar] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-19: (with COMMENT)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 1:07 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 1. Thanks for the "Updates to RFC 8794" section! I think you also should
> add
> the "Updates" header. I expect this was just an oversight since you've
> gotten
> the rest of the formalities right including mentioning the update in the
> abstract.
>

I think I concur.  Can we make this edit to the metadata at the top and
post a revision?


> 2. I notice you haven't changed the language of the form "are set to 00". I
> think you asked me about this in an email reply a long time ago and I
> dropped
> the ball. Indeed, my suggestion was to use "0b00" instead of "00" (and
> similar,
> wherever you are writing out binary, whatever the specific values). That
> is, I
> think you should do as other RFCs do and follow the usual C syntax for
> number
> representation. As you've written it, with a leading zero and no base
> indicator, the casual reader might suppose you were using octal, same for
> "set
> to 01". Similarly, "are set to 11" looks to my eye as if it meant "are set
> to
> (decimal) eleven". Of course, with just a tiny bit of effort, your true
> meaning
> can be inferred from "the bits 5-6..." but why not specify the radix?
>

+1 here too.

These aren't DISCUSSes (though the first one comes pretty close), but I'd
also be curious to hear what the WG thinks.

-MSK