[codec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08: (with COMMENT)
Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 14 August 2017 15:56 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: codec@ietf.org
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85F3B1323A0; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update@ietf.org, Tim Terriberry <tterriberry@mozilla.com>, codec-chairs@ietf.org, tterriberry@mozilla.com, codec@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.58.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150272618954.396.2989336786082869936.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 08:56:29 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/Etf5vcI5uTQlAbmaJW1FwKdwklk>
Subject: [codec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 15:56:30 -0000
Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- While I support the publication as this seems to be the right thing for me to do in this situation, I find it really weird that we have to publish an RFC to fix bugs in an example implementation in the appendix (that is even encoded). While it is a good thing to have code in an RFC as far as this helps implementation, maybe rfc6716 went to far with putting a whole reference implementation in there. I guess that has also led to a situation where everybody is just using the provided code while efforts to reimplement the spec could have detected these bugs earlier in the process. Maybe it's an item for the IESG to thinking about how to provide a reference implementation with an RFC (that maybe can be updated easier) other than just putting it in the appendix. One more actionable comment: I think the abstract could say more about the updates, especially maybe noticing that this only updates the code in the appendix and not the normative language in the body.
- [codec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-i… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [codec] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on dra… Ben Campbell