IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 21 May 2021 18:19 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 62E9F3A1A4B for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 O7X_FuWsxjL7 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D51B3A1A4A for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 May 2021 11:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13AE138D47; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:29:28 -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 LJR78OaTX5Oo; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EDEB38D3F; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:29:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C995F9AF; Fri, 21 May 2021 14:19:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa7u3C9h1ABJBWO63-nEvmnHVA3=qCrHpW2VYv7tyhGNg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification/issues/407@github.com> <21441.1620656178@localhost> <CAKKJt-e5PtTZM=j=Cn_YBPW87ag+oui7mGx=wuxt0JU1KY3SLQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwa7u3C9h1ABJBWO63-nEvmnHVA3=qCrHpW2VYv7tyhGNg@mail.gmail.com>
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: Fri, 21 May 2021 14:19:51 -0400
Message-ID: <27253.1621621191@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/DX7wT8u-OImg4HPB39OyXaHVYkI>
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: Fri, 21 May 2021 18:19:59 -0000

Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
    > It's possible I don't have all the context I need here, in which case
    > this answer will be nonsense and I'll need ask for more details, but
    > running with what I've got:

I think you got it right.

    > I think you could do an "updates" document to EBML that just makes IANA
    > registry/policy amendments if you want to do that.  Smaller documents
    > tend to result in faster processing by the IESG.  The cases where this
    > tends not to work is where the number of "updates" documents gets large
    > enough that teasing out reality becomes difficult; at that point it
    > becomes better to just issue a complete "bis" document.

I think we are still in the updates space.

    > If you put EBML-specific IANA actions in the Matroska document, and
    > they are not clearly related, you might encounter some resistance of
    > the form "What the heck is this doing here?" from the IESG or other
    > reviewers.

I think we have slightly bit more than than the IANA action changes.
I think that we should do this updates document, but not rush it, aiming to
get it to IESG by the end of the summer.

I think it will be about four pages long.

--
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