IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] Summary of codec specification - Code in RFC

Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com> Tue, 05 October 2010 09:48 UTC

Return-Path: <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94B863A6F14 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 02:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.213
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.213 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.614, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AUbQIJ0EVWaC for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mgw-sa01.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [147.243.1.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D35F3A6F08 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 02:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.fit.nokia.com (esdhcp030222.research.nokia.com [172.21.30.222]) by mgw-sa01.nokia.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id o959npQG018056 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:49:51 +0300
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.96.2 at fit.nokia.com
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-136-874821813"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8CD010D.24D11%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:49:43 +0200
Message-Id: <F900BFB6-4421-495F-B33D-AAA77C35FCF0@nokia.com>
References: <C8CD010D.24D11%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (mail.fit.nokia.com); Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:49:45 +0300 (EEST)
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Summary of codec specification - Code in RFC
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 09:48:59 -0000

On 2010-10-3, at 0:32, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> As said before, putting base64 code into an RFC makes sense to me.  However,
> I would definitely put it into its own RFC (which would be standards track)
> and not into an appendix of the same document.  The versioning problem seems
> to be less an issue than the trees that will fall if people "print all" the
> RFC in question.  So please leave the textual description in another
> document.  

FWIW, this was the approach we followed with the XDR code for NFS 4.1: RFC 5661 has the spec text and RFC 5662 has the XDR (in this case, as plain text).

Lars

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email