IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Alexey Melnikov" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm> Fri, 25 October 2019 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
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 6D0A5120227 for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fastmail.fm header.b=pZldxLxX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=QV/QzFCW
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 6rcRmyVdfR9z for <cellar@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:37:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE87120168 for <cellar@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute7.internal (compute7.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26C422221; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:37:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap1 ([10.202.2.51]) by compute7.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:37:03 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.fm; h= mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to:cc :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=3YxIjoVCaf+DsPW8ONiDAv4obBRAaQd S0Q0mwrcId4U=; b=pZldxLxX3CZIGvYk6SJD1/L6zPBGqokFnLVxvNU64C5BdkZ Sgh1BbO4ihOIOUOUNCaj49tvexVVlRLKBro2zKZ1ghaXZainI/S1OOS74YaWozkK AObxCXarMJOkdY4DpFiT97iUAKG+hsgJ55IFVAZpx3UyLWCJd9kKJ+aLeusHl1Pm 9SJ0pmRfD9bi0Aq0yXUNqPZJk7uel6xHmddpn2Q7VjHyzFuNza5mQVzRKGkfkNKZ Y5RLQC+cTRpTDS3Rqqmad1TSvY9tRAp6sc40fjiho2z4TrC3y8FyZvd3WO4JGCQ0 ctvp/V5I+0+NBfZOcaSRu0TsGeO4u/ojg2BBO9A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=3YxIjo VCaf+DsPW8ONiDAv4obBRAaQdS0Q0mwrcId4U=; b=QV/QzFCWY86dc4+QhJjPI8 tHOfWXbcKwQ+P+RXSxedx7LB8/hepjOMed6lzg4UeVL5G1uxx0Yt27pVTVAKJlVO gruvV7kdJkQtelPBQsC70JXhsc6XPo79fmM9uKnR+MkFiB0MUCHuquEbk+OoAOMy PRbXHoIpBV6nmg9/uF76aLiS+piW7kAQ4PgPJ1s8fIkTYtai4t2RbBXHVRaATUu5 COW5FdcK65NQhBJyGlN6kS6tj++cogng8g856Mf5yaSbuY9wsip+CNbCkUPqdYb7 7GYwZz5ej3aH0U21+PPff8i73FBalmj+L4+t1z3TWQECvOi0mU5/8okcnA05KGoA ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:nxazXVo0qje_YatrJ1pNezxu0_9BaP8AYzyh6peottPEDB4fiYscOg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrleefgdeludcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdetlhgvgigvhicuofgvlhhnihhkohhvfdcuoegrrghmvghl nhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe grrghmvghlnhhikhhovhesfhgrshhtmhgrihhlrdhfmhenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:nxazXS1keL0RsCmaqrkdnXZq8vErCD7krqRKYs8lW7VOHEcQNsv9wg> <xmx:nxazXWCT93FjvCVCQ5dSV5C3EBieKSXpJOaRUfCvGncG2tL0QvFAUA> <xmx:nxazXbMF_-8woYP8UOjWgWPow7VsEsevSv54uiT1k-aCOqTCHt8eJQ> <xmx:nxazXSgn9gD0rpGiNivoh32-MYS9qaRiHFitN2rhwlX3nExzXyjbkA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id F1992C200A6; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:37:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-470-gedfae93-fmstable-20191021v4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <c208f4e3-68bd-41ac-98ae-679f5c209ab3@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <26528.1571940866@localhost>
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>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:36:29 +0100
From: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Cc: cellar@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/qXr6H2UkyNlKUkAutZyHdii644k>
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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 15:37:07 -0000

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.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email