IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cellar] Conversation about a NON-IANA request in Matroska

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Fri, 20 August 2021 02:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@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 4F25C3A0AFD for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 a5efZvuD9jiV for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 F03413A0AFB for <cellar@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 19:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29291389AB; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:00:32 -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 m_DMAO-R2Lki; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:00:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DEBA389B7; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:00:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22FDFE; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 22:55:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@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>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbUk7QLiCEESqbEknUELSgure+MrdvLXBK+hkRV_GxVxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKKJt-ceukRCPUK=DTvDxDBPw-ddROX-snfZQ-BatSkgVZ0-qw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwY6V8eVG56ckhy3GFDwW61-6OD9_h=X-vDWFySM0e3B9A@mail.gmail.com> <4945.1629386506@localhost> <CAL0qLwZeE1qZ+5wLnCMFoCcvP2cf5=9Y+g5Lx3k5iqxF7gAw5g@mail.gmail.com> <22109.1629403274@localhost> <CAL0qLwbUk7QLiCEESqbEknUELSgure+MrdvLXBK+hkRV_GxVxQ@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: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 22:55:05 -0400
Message-ID: <31989.1629428105@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/Wo3K0WCBHEjHQIU0_rEwroPbh_8>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Conversation about a NON-IANA request in Matroska
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, 20 Aug 2021 02:55:30 -0000

Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
    > What I'm worried about is that picking a date effectively sets a flag day.
    > Have we ever successfully asserted a flag day in a standards action before?

It's not a flag day.
We don't have to coordinate upgrades.
A flag day means that we have to change both senders and receivers.

All receivers/readers will understand both.
It's just that senders will start marking with the new one.

    > But then the IETF has no control over whether anyone adheres to it, making
    > it effectively arbitrary anyway.

That's true.


--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email