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

Hi,

Le ven. 25 oct. 2019 à 17:37, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> a écrit :
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 7:14 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >
> > Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >     >> A decision as to who is the legitimate documentator of the (existing)
> >     >> "webm" DocType would be up to the IESG.
> >
> >     > Is "webm" will be worked on in this WG?
> >
> > No, not unless Google shows up with it!
> > WebM shares a container format with Matroska (being EBML), but we are not
> > trying standard it.
>
> So the IANA policy for this entry would be IESG Approval or RFC Required. Why do you want IESG to be involved in the decision to remove "Reserved" for "webm"? I would rather have Expert Review here, so that IESG doesn't need to decide.

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.

> If the WG has good reasons for IESG to be involved, that is fine. But I would like to understand the reason(s) first.
>
>
> Also, I just realized that the IANA registration policy for "ELLAR EBML DocType Registry" is not very clear. Does the WG want "IESG Approval" or "RFC Required" be applied to the whole registry or just to the 2 reserved values? The current text seems to be saying the latter.
>
> Best Regards,
> Alexey
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> Cellar@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman