Re: [Cellar] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 08 October 2020 17:49 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 35D523A0B91; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:49:26 -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 xS7qbosfU4jR; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 46AC83A0B90; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF5C389C2; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:54:50 -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 uxSk7sAFqJdU; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F933389C0; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0761518B; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 13:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1\@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1@ietf.org>, "cellar-chairs\@ietf.org" <cellar-chairs@ietf.org>, "Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission" <cellar@ietf.org>, "Peter B." <pb@das-werkstatt.com>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB436690E2B5940322BC756274B50B0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <160190967658.31262.3611106747790904168@ietfa.amsl.com> <61aa6a30-a10a-0460-dbcb-aace9936a468@mediaarea.net> <CAKKJt-de6NfAFTv6GQQ6f=PfX7cQuCJY2nzgx98+mvA2zX02hg@mail.gmail.com> <18667.1602095984@localhost> <MN2PR11MB436690E2B5940322BC756274B50B0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.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, 08 Oct 2020 13:49:22 -0400
Message-ID: <1838.1602179362@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/j_W7P5PUqBMHmHlMIDzXCeZCoPY>
Subject: Re: [Cellar] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-17: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 17:49:26 -0000

Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Personally, I would find this specification very hard to implement
    > correctly in an interoperable way.  However, I don't have any expertise
    > in video codecs, and if I did then perhaps this specification would be
    > sufficient, it is hard to judge.  However, if this document is
    > primarily intended to act as a historical record for existing FFV1
    > implementations, with the main focus being on a standards track FFV1
    > version 4, then the fact that parts of this document are a bit opaque
    > may not really be important in the longer term, particularly if the
    > FFV1 v4 specification is more accessible.

Ah, I understand you concern much better now.

Given that there is significant content in this format which is being
archived, one should assume that someone might want to write a new decoder in
some new language in 50 years.

I think that FFV1 v4 builds upon the notation and concepts in v013,
so I think that any clarifications or style changes that we can make on this
pass will help when v4 comes forward.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide