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

["Timothy B. Terriberry" <[e-mail]>]

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.