Re: [codec] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-07: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> S 5.2.
> >         The remaining channel mapping families (2...254) are reserved.  A
> >         demuxer implementation encountering a 'channel mapping family'
> >         value that it does not recognize SHOULD NOT attempt to decode the
> >         packets and SHOULD NOT use any information except for the first 19
> >         octets of the ID header packet (Fig. 2) and the comment header
> >         (Fig. 10).
> 
> What is the rationale for this change? Also, why are you doing it in
> this document? This seems like it's going to be extremely hard for
> implementors to find in future.
> 
> These paragraphs are updates to RFC 7845, which needed to be revised to accommodate the proposed channel mapping families in this draft.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand. Why did they need to be revised to have this change?
> 
> 
> The authors of RFC 7845 and RFC 6716 suggested that the necessary updates to RFC 7845 should be included in this draft.
> 
> I understand, but my point is that people are likely to ignore this draft if they don't care about ambisonics and thereby miss out on a relevant information. In any case, I'll defer to the WG and AD.
> 

Closing the loop on this point:

We have commonly put updates to RFCs in the documents that create the need for the updates, even if the update is generally applicable. We have the “Updates/Updated by” relationships to track this sort of thing.

I am sympathetic to Ekr’s argument, in that I agree it would be more convenient for the reader to find the update in a smaller, dedicated draft. But at this point in the process, I highly doubt the wg has the energy to do that sort of restructuring. Therefore I am inclined to leave this the way it is.

Thanks,

Ben.