IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cellar] purpose of FLAC RFC --- vs xiph.org

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 20 October 2023 15:01 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 1AE4BC14F74A for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.406
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.406 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwjSPPARodt6 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97A19C14F73F for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 08:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE311800D; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:01:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id HnrgyWAEpEmG; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B82351800C; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1697814104; bh=gkYhQ4VqQcXtytaPe8EhiqNpSP2/+8DAZIZGCn2BVTE=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=XAOvaQ8F8CmAcZS7M2z5UZJnDEKryl30te3Z6OgSt3eGiWv0EL6A/vXu7p4sQlrsO f+V4PLJT9hhR/Tj/OFocEcWyXm0hVH1CgBQejPR7FJ5+dw9xv5v+Hu6jDOsHH5b9tA IUbmbbgnEzRqkAcEaWhdSjfJ6UFktSAffIQ7R0ie43M/LHn02f8V9yKE584DPKHCE3 nnw+Siz/3GFPmW3npeO9A31rjCzER9TzY4BPFFKKHHIveObnl54sw8PGxRdDdC0gZR +F5mlqzZlVX1KRTxTU9yA5KKdSv3GefEtCwDjD9MlCPBHWQ7OKR9KvBsvRjWLh3Wc1 kuuVBj7ohzz/A==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4D448; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:01:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Martijn van Beurden <mvanb1@gmail.com>
cc: cellar@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CADQbU69-YfQMkaAfrdvUTuoDVWAp_xLfK28zH7WxCM7naJCVZg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <27285.1697739741@localhost> <CADQbU69-YfQMkaAfrdvUTuoDVWAp_xLfK28zH7WxCM7naJCVZg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 11:01:44 -0400
Message-ID: <4764.1697814104@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/CIc85wyl9ialnOH8XZYGcOGi8I8>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] purpose of FLAC RFC --- vs xiph.org
X-BeenThere: cellar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 15:01:53 -0000

Martijn van Beurden <mvanb1@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Maybe I'm wrong, and the FLAC community wants the RFC to be the basis for all
    >> future work.  In which case, taking over that application ID table would be
    >> appropriate.  But, there are then other IANA tables that we need:
    >> * Table 2
    >> * Table 8
    >> * Table 13
    >>

    > I don't think those need an IANA registry. To me, it would make more
    > sense to have those tables updated with a new RFC if the need would
    > ever arise, because there are much more things in the spec that would
    > be needed for future expansion besides those tables.

okay, I will respect this.

Can we do the Application ID IANA table and Considerations?
I am pressed for time this weekend, but next week I can suggest text in a PR
if you need me to do that.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email