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

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 07 October 2020 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 F26443A0AB2; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:00:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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=gmail.com
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 ihnoZ_uEHGpj; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 646CA3A0AAB; Wed, 7 Oct 2020 09:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2c.google.com with SMTP id b142so2192564ybg.9; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:00:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TACsWBtpBYp4yXJ7v03nb6c+yadRnjiGJun9UI23F8E=; b=XktUgNe07qKW+SP5c9xy0JXv5Ylp7qHhZq4UvInjPpJd0QJj/moAeoSNd3yaEHEisI xU3BUK0rCsZd2UvE5mzzQljjQX9usH8yJzKn6MoRqAzia/5eVuHRZng94k1T2nYIhZ69 mrCCVRBSXzexOouBCICrY9XVZGv04IdD3/T9g8mbjSUt24mnBNTN/hxjV20vgPq706cq ayx7P9iN0zOztQzWOvRakX2LniOMc9Iy8tXwyCFkRplI8VNR+MCdGyr+DaY8GQU7q/sP 9f6HeqY/d/gGloazIOA9zCz1a47RjClfY41ZLBVJyVEFTVFLdezh2gMK5AYxjwrif8wV 4rqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TACsWBtpBYp4yXJ7v03nb6c+yadRnjiGJun9UI23F8E=; b=kkCI7t80nM6yFL2Bt1IEB3KXPhWZT4gTOsFtA9kHvvTibjn/dkirOEIxNCug8nvAri ZSl07ioa8SanSnHan5EgX0Damo/9KJ4gQn+a4+/qaSZC62d1LLg/pZl2MAwqiozrXkzM 7qxmembL9Kx6dJSGRCX0IIVuAY0FylHerZtBqo0UdbcqQWQj530Vv2KekEYpR7b5MJ08 uPpZ2SJ/N0ogmot3WWsu9XCodXu/ZpEmmD7RLr1dFsom3IdPM8c2mSMs96zxg+vNtMOT pTQO8ZGkV9Q1yzuV+cXsR94rUt24e0/EMrk10PYIO6qu9DX3MGl1lz28Rp7BHhPkdKTI xyKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LpsVPj4Qd3onBqkVtREEtG0ur77wp3xsBcjRWa8QP5OARezZK 7cpIBeuBt+kgPzS0/3BITOpi90pnrT+bXTGyVTg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyDeyp9r2/mK5E9fUZSZzzWAN4hO5sfHxO9xXoc+bzG7WSdTYas54aTkjX9VRbdmKBAKmgXXJZuI9WdWmuJNg=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:384e:: with SMTP id f75mr4912909yba.389.1602086424588; Wed, 07 Oct 2020 09:00:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160190967658.31262.3611106747790904168@ietfa.amsl.com> <61aa6a30-a10a-0460-dbcb-aace9936a468@mediaarea.net>
In-Reply-To: <61aa6a30-a10a-0460-dbcb-aace9936a468@mediaarea.net>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:59:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-de6NfAFTv6GQQ6f=PfX7cQuCJY2nzgx98+mvA2zX02hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jerome Martinez <jerome@mediaarea.net>
Cc: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1@ietf.org, cellar-chairs@ietf.org, Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime transmission <cellar@ietf.org>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "Peter B." <pb@das-werkstatt.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003cb6be05b116d0c0"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cellar/uTfVb6LqRUc2Z1g1rvZ4CzF_wOo>
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: Wed, 07 Oct 2020 16:00:27 -0000

Hi, Robert,

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jerome Martinez <jerome@mediaarea.net>
wrote:

> Hi Robert,
> Thank you for your comments. Answers inline:
>
> On 05/10/2020 16:54, Robert Wilton via Datatracker wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thank you for taking the time to document FFV1 version 0, 1 and 3.
> >
> > I support Barry's discuss in that I found this document hard to read and
> > interpret.  I think that I would struggle to implement a FFV1
> encoder/decoded
> > from scratch based on this document.  However, this is a long way
> outside my
> > area of expertise and there is perhaps a corpus of basic video codec
> knowledge
> > that is assumed in this specification.
> >
> > Is the intention of this document that it gets obsoleted when FFV1
> version 4 is
> > documented?
>
> There is no definitive answer but I think that at long term FFV1 version
> 4 specification is intended to be on IETF standard track, with the
> decoder based on the specification, and that we will remove all the
> parts specific to FFV1 version 0, 1 and 3 e.g. all the exceptions
> documented due to the spec written after the decoder and all the "if
> version is" related to previous versions, so this document would not be
> obsoleted when FFV1 version 4 is accepted as an IETF standard.
>

Just to follow up on Jerome's more experienced answer,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-ffv1-v4/ is listed as
Standards Track, so yes, that's the goal.

Questions of what's obsoleted, or declared Historic, or otherwise done
to FFV1 version 0, 1 and 3, would be decided by the working group, AD, and
IESG when FFV1 version 4 is in IESG Evaluation, I think?

If that's not the case, I'll let someone correct me.

Best,

Spencer