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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 24 August 2018 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5BB130DC0; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 MAdhihIug468; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C974D130DDF; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.95] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w7OKq6rS079009 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:52:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.95]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <79B0D7AD-8F65-4E9A-A0D6-02473ED1899A@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AC410CAA-ED0E-4782-AF95-8060AB0377B2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:51:55 -0500
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBN_59DtVZz7K8x7Q4D_2RMeG15-sxeMAc6neR=HCHE9mw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Skoglund <jks@google.com>, Tim Terriberry <tterriberry@mozilla.com>, codec-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics@ietf.org, codec@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <153295358610.1069.2720875646830940452.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+KMCSWg366hoC+kit+NCLDU33YR7UBY-mv0Xyh9oXUNsM55eA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBN_59DtVZz7K8x7Q4D_2RMeG15-sxeMAc6neR=HCHE9mw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/y1_byemgo9T3Qq9PdP3Ww0Ky4GY>
Subject: Re: [codec] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <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: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:52:15 -0000


> On Aug 10, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> 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.