IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cellar] Second AD review of draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-10

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 05 November 2019 22:12 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 2AD91120025 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:12:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 NiTMAdgrdDn9 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 919E6120018 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 14:12:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865273897A; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:09:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81C7760; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:12:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
cc: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <BE6FD6D2-B44A-497A-AFAA-2234408C3BB9@fastmail.fm>
References: <3835cda8-7bfb-4178-bec7-b0acff9327ba@www.fastmail.com> <feca623f-380c-347d-5ab5-63fdc2322d0a@sandelman.ca> <bc6ef067-f360-4630-b6cf-f7b9fcb600f6@www.fastmail.com> <26528.1571940866@localhost> <c208f4e3-68bd-41ac-98ae-679f5c209ab3@www.fastmail.com> <CAOXsMFJO8Z1LW38AR6LFPsn86hUME9Ch_Xn3nip7mk0R4egj6g@mail.gmail.com> <BE6FD6D2-B44A-497A-AFAA-2234408C3BB9@fastmail.fm>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
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-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 17:12:07 -0500
Message-ID: <31580.1572991927@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/SlFLZ0LLnHozYYsNxv_6ctHxDwc>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Second AD review of draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-10
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 22:12:13 -0000

Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
    >> I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the two. The goal
    >> here is to inform creators of an EBML format that "matroska" and
    >> "webm" are known to be used elsewhere.

    > The draft reserves 2 names, which is fine. The question is who is going
    > to be authorized to change these reservations into proper
    > registrations.

I don't care what we write.
IANA said that the IESG was ultimately responsible, either by appointing an
Expert Reviewer, or by making the decision itself.

As "matroska" is within the CELLAR charter, and we will allocate that name to
the document, once the document is published (by Standards Action, which is a
superset of IESG Approval), then issue is **only** for "webm".

If a design team shows up and wants to say, "Here it the URL for a stable
WebM spec", then the IESG should have IANA update it's registry.
The question will be whether this is the right design team and the right URL,
will either be trivially obvious, or very difficult to determine.
I don't know if the IESG will find it any easier to appoint an Expert.

(Asking the CELLAR WG will be like asking the Bernie Sander's team about
whether it was right for Trump to go after Her Emails)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email