Re: [codec] draft-ietf-codec-oggopus and "album" gain

Ron <ron@debian.org> Mon, 08 September 2014 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ron@debian.org>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC221A88B1 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1t8EMTab0pTG for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109CC1A88A9 for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ppp14-2-41-157.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO mailservice.shelbyville.oz) ([14.2.41.157]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 09 Sep 2014 02:14:44 +0930
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 669D2FFDE1 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:14:41 +0930 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailservice.shelbyville.oz
Received: from mailservice.shelbyville.oz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailservice.shelbyville.oz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id O87lwfp8p2Y2 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:14:40 +0930 (CST)
Received: from hex.shelbyville.oz (hex.shelbyville.oz [192.168.1.6]) by mailservice.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCDC6FFD8F for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:14:40 +0930 (CST)
Received: by hex.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BD49C80470; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:14:40 +0930 (CST)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 02:14:40 +0930
From: Ron <ron@debian.org>
To: codec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20140908164440.GA32116@hex.shelbyville.oz>
References: <20140813222201.54fe7910@crunchbang> <53ECF0E0.9060308@xiph.org> <20140816040140.GA31682@hex.shelbyville.oz> <53FBC299.1070008@thaumas.net> <20140827153043.2ff5e031@crunchbang> <53FE0054.5080207@thaumas.net> <20140827212655.GW326@hex.shelbyville.oz> <20140907163126.GZ326@hex.shelbyville.oz> <540DB67E.8030404@xiph.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <540DB67E.8030404@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/qLmxTWCqWBUEqrqYU6AWZ75hcIc
Subject: Re: [codec] draft-ietf-codec-oggopus and "album" gain
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <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: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 16:44:48 -0000

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 07:00:30AM -0700, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> Ron wrote:
> >So I believe this is now the last outstanding question from the last
> >call comments that we still have open.
> 
> I think there were a few more non-normative "shoulds" that needed to be
> cleaned up. Did you and Ralph have some suggestions for those? I didn't see
> any on the list.

Ralph went through those and pushed changes to replace the stray
lowercase shoulds with alternative language, and those looked ok
to me and shouldn't be controversial.  Several of them read better
without the shoulds anyway and I don't think any of them change
the intended meaning where they happened.

There may still be a couple of MAYs that we're using in the natural
language sense which might not quite fit the BCP14 sense of an
"optional item", but that's possibly a question for better language
lawyers than me to give an opinion on.

That said, they indeed haven't been discussed or vetted here yet,
and I agree they should be.  Given the number of "minor editorial
changes" that have occurred in response to various comments, I
guess we should probably wrap up whatever language is needed to
meet Ian's concern then push out another draft that people can
review in its entirety?

I'd certainly welcome people reviewing those things in git, but
it might be a bit much to expect them to do so that way.

If there's a better plan than that, I'm open to it though.

  Ron