IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-oggopus-00.txt

Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@jmvalin.ca> Wed, 11 July 2012 02:00 UTC

Return-Path: <jmvalin@jmvalin.ca>
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 8FCBA11E80DC for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.178
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.178 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.421, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TZM4ENSHPiXy for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais.videotron.ca (relais.videotron.ca [24.201.245.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 125ED11E8072 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET="US-ASCII"
Received: from [192.168.1.14] ([96.21.20.94]) by VL-VM-MR002.ip.videotron.ca (Oracle Communications Messaging Exchange Server 7u4-22.01 64bit (built Apr 21 2011)) with ESMTP id <0M6Z001OY498N870@VL-VM-MR002.ip.videotron.ca> for codec@ietf.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:00:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <4FFCDE25.8030201@jmvalin.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:00:05 -0400
From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@jmvalin.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
References: <20120705150704.14085.7364.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FF5AEED.8080300@xiph.org> <4FFB851E.7040906@mozilla.com> <4FFCD7BC.6000906@xiph.org>
In-reply-to: <4FFCD7BC.6000906@xiph.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-oggopus-00.txt
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:00:22 -0000

On 12-07-10 09:32 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> The test would actually have to be: exact version is known (0 or 1) AND
> (mapping family is 0 AND length is not 19, OR mapping family is > 0 and
> length is not 21+c). I don't see a reason to disallow rejection this
> case beyond the complexity required to explain how to allow rejection.
> What's the upside to allowing rejection?

Well, the alternative would be to say that implementations MUST NOT
reject (some) files that are known to be invalid. That seems a bit wrong
to me.

	Jean-Marc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email