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

[Steve Lhomme <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

Thanks for your update. Comments and changes below.

> On 27 Sep 2023, at 22:07, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-cellar-matroska-19: No Objection
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-matroska/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for your work on this document, and I apologize for the length of time
> it's taken me to review the changes. I have a couple of final comments.
> 
> 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.
> 
Do you mean the section on which the errata apply ? It is missing indeed so it’s a bit complicated to know where the text should be applied. I added the sections in this PR
https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification/pull/799
Add the RFC8794 sections on which the errata apply by robUx4 · Pull Request #799 · ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification
github.com

> 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?
> 

Yes it makes sense to use the binary notation.
I added the fixes in https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/matroska-specification/pull/800

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar