Re: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-09

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

There's a typo in "specification required". Otherwise, It think it's 
probably ready for IETF last call. Please submit when you are ready.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 12 Jan 2016, at 15:17, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

> Ben Campbell wrote:
>>> To quote the attached diff:
>>>
>>> -Implementations SHOULD reject ID headers which do not contain 
>>> enough
>>> data for
>>> - these fields, even if they contain a valid Magic Signature.
>>> +Implementations SHOULD reject streams with ID headers that do not
>>> contain
>>> + enough data for these fields, even if they contain a valid Magic
>>> Signature.
>>
>> I don't find that in the attached diff.
>
> I meant the one that was attached to the e-mail to which you were 
> responding: 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg03150.html
>
> Sorry for being unclear.
>
>>> application-level assumptions I'm not sure I'm comfortable writing
>>> normative text around. Any ideas for a better way to phrase this?
>>
>> "treat as invalid"?
>
> I can work with that.
>
>> That text looks good, except that I would avoid normative language:
>>
>> s/ "IANA SHALL..."/"IANA is requested to..."
>> s/"All maintenance within and additions to the contents of this name
>> space MUST be according"/"Modifications to this registry follow..."
>
> Normative language removed.
>
>> Either, really. But obviously the 6716 was accepted, so it would be
>> easier to accept due to precedent. The question I have is whether 
>> that
>> precedent applies here. And you will recall that there was some
>> tooth-gnashing over it for 6716 :-)
>
> I remember. I think the precedent does apply, since the issue is 
> including the RFC with the code package, not whether or not the RFC 
> itself contains code.
>
>> I'm curious--are there no other RFCs distributed in Debian?
>
> Ron may have a better idea of real numbers, but it is certainly an 
> issue that has come up before. See 
> <https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments>, which links to a list 
> of bugreports. As Ron points out, there are a few RFCs that are 
> distributed because they included additional grants (after which the 
> original grants in draft-ietf-codec-opus and this draft were modeled). 
> It does not appear as if that page has been updated since RFC 6716 was 
> published, though.
>
>> I'll let that (as updated) go to IETF LC. But don't be surprised if
>> there's further discussion to be had here.
>
> I fully expect it.
>
> Additional changes for the above attached. If there are no more 
> comments, I can publish a new version with all of these included.