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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Robert,

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 10:16 AM Jerome Martinez <[e-mail]>
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