Re: [codec] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-07: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

It's a comment on my side, so I leave it to your discretion

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > S 5.2.
> > >         The remaining channel mapping families (2...254) are
> reserved.  A
> > >         demuxer implementation encountering a 'channel mapping family'
> > >         value that it does not recognize SHOULD NOT attempt to decode
> the
> > >         packets and SHOULD NOT use any information except for the
> first 19
> > >         octets of the ID header packet (Fig. 2) and the comment header
> > >         (Fig. 10).
> >
> > What is the rationale for this change? Also, why are you doing it in
> > this document? This seems like it's going to be extremely hard for
> > implementors to find in future.
> >
> > These paragraphs are updates to RFC 7845, which needed to be revised to
> accommodate the proposed channel mapping families in this draft.
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand. Why did they need to be revised to have this
> change?
> >
> >
> > The authors of RFC 7845 and RFC 6716 suggested that the necessary
> updates to RFC 7845 should be included in this draft.
> >
> > I understand, but my point is that people are likely to ignore this
> draft if they don't care about ambisonics and thereby miss out on a
> relevant information. In any case, I'll defer to the WG and AD.
> >
>
> Closing the loop on this point:
>
> We have commonly put updates to RFCs in the documents that create the need
> for the updates, even if the update is generally applicable. We have the
> “Updates/Updated by” relationships to track this sort of thing.
>
> I am sympathetic to Ekr’s argument, in that I agree it would be more
> convenient for the reader to find the update in a smaller, dedicated draft.
> But at this point in the process, I highly doubt the wg has the energy to
> do that sort of restructuring. Therefore I am inclined to leave this the
> way it is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben.
>
>
>
>
>