Re: [Cellar] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Mon, 07 December 2020 01:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 D369B3A0E53; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 17:48:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 TdS7bBGgwwPE; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 17:48:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8295A3A0E52; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 17:48:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B923899E; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 20:50:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id bcmrnW5JZq-D; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 20:50:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12EDA3899D; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 20:50:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7684F5; Sun, 6 Dec 2020 20:48:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: cellar@ietf.org, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
cc: Dave Rice <dave@dericed.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, derek.buitenhuis@gmail.com, pb@das-werkstatt.com, draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20201204183342.GO2389354@pb2>
References: <160049032442.20595.4616862102756589735@ietfa.amsl.com> <92029D16-621F-4AE0-BC3F-03C08AB21ADE@dericed.com> <C99936E0-F4EE-4F32-A731-CFB01E84C644@dericed.com> <CALaySJLqjY5muXMQRGeR7drZ7imYLVQFxZxsdD65g3f7onz51A@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJK8q4k_WeuGxCDnaYrekm-_jKshnDOF56T3KYuUGHxWHw@mail.gmail.com> <3BDF43E9-1245-40D0-B589-7ABFC14C8823@dericed.com> <20201204183342.GO2389354@pb2>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2020 20:48:20 -0500
Message-ID: <4813.1607305700@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/BTaQvVUbSxD6wJCXRmy1jRChPhc>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 01:48:28 -0000

Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
    >> Yes, in pseudo-code that is the same.
    >> Michael Niedermayer, any objection to converting some of the math to pseudocode?

    > Iam perfectly fine with changing the notation so it is easier to understand.

    > One disadavantage of pure pseudocode could be that it may be hard to describe
    > encoding in such a way that it describes not one bitstream but a set of
    > bitstreams which are guranteed to be decoded correctly.
    > That is if the encoder side is described by pseudocode.

    > If the approuch of trying to describe the bitstream by the non pseudocode
    > notation is disliked. Then maybe the decoder side can be described by
    > normative pseudocode and the encoder side by informative pseudocode
    > so that the encoder side would be "one possible" solution but not the only
    > one.

This sounds good to me.
I think that you want the decoder to be normative, because we must always
produce only bitstreams that can be decoded.

    > I had not imagined that the notation would lead to so much confusion,
    > its definitly important that the text can be understood and implemented
    > by the average target audience, if the notation causes problems here it
    > certainly should be improved ...

It is unfortunately the case that we must often write specifications for the
general audience.
That's the plight of the expert: to explain themselves to non-experts :-)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide