Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 28 February 2023 04:10 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKKJt-e0eYCjRAxkiRPBv1KhPVyfyXjtsEORahqFmkuyrgF1eg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-e0eYCjRAxkiRPBv1KhPVyfyXjtsEORahqFmkuyrgF1eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 22:09:54 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-c7qX6bYa+dmwnkzMHAGb4OG5wEYGGj5np4U9doe=ssEg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025536505f5bac66c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/ij_S5ohWi6QrrnAnWjUUehbWsQM>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items
Precedence: list

I have one more agenda item of my own. This might be more appropriate for
our next meeting agenda, but I'm looking at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-cellar-flac-07#name-examples,
last paragraph, where it says

   All data in this appendix has been thoroughly verified.  However, as

   this appendix is informational, in case any information here

   conflicts with statements in the formal specification, the latter

   takes precedence.

So far, so good. My question is, this working group and the community it
serves rely very heavily on GitHub. The IETF relied on the RFC Errata
system for decades, because we didn't have an obvious alternative, but
that's not the case today.

For this one type of conflict, we've told people the formal specification
wins, but do we also want people to tell us that they've identified a
conflict, or at least they think they've identified a conflict?

If so, do we want them to enter an errata in the RFC Errata system (that's
the default, no action required), or do we want them to enter an issue in
the GitHub repo, where we're more likely to notice it, and have already
reflected notifications for new issues to the working group mailing list?

What do people think? Put this topic on the agenda for an upcoming meeting?

Just to be clear - this discussion wouldn't hold up publication for the
FLAC specification, because (as Michael said about Matroska) we can make
minor fixes like this one until AUTH48, and we don't have to converge on a
fix for this before publishing an RFC at all.

Best,

Spencer

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 10:58 AM Spencer Dawkins at IETF <
spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Cellar participants,
>
> Other than
>
>    - Spencer's long-promised Shepherd Writeup
>    on draft-ietf-cellar-flac-07, and
>    - going through the small wish list for FFV1v4 in
>    https://github.com/FFmpeg/FFV1/issues  and priotiizing,
>
> is there anything special that Michael and I should have on our agenda for
> our meeting next Tuesday?
>
> Best,
>
> Spencer
>

[Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Martijn van Beurden
Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Steve Lhomme
Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Michael Richardson
Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Re: [Cellar] Call for February Cellar agenda items Michael Richardson