Re: [dispatch] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-cellar-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Michael Niedermayer <[e-mail]>]

Resending my reply from the mail address thats subscribed to dispatch
after canceling the stuck reply

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 06:02:44PM +0200, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> 2015-10-22 17:18 GMT+02:00 Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>:
> > (+dispatch for now; we will setup a cellar list shortly).
> >
> > Does anyone have thoughts on Stephen's comment below?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> >
> > On 22 Oct 2015, at 8:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> >> charter-ietf-cellar-00-00: Yes
> >>
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cellar/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >> I wonder is there any interest in the security of the archived
> >> stuff here, and whether the WG would want to possibly take
> >> that on, most likely later. I'm not saying they should, as that
> >> could be a lot of possibly contentious work, but if they did
> >> want to do it, it'd be good to say in the charter.
> 
> Does he mean security as in only allowing certain people to access the
> data ? IMO it's out of the scope and better handled out of the file
> format/streaming. It's more a transport/storage issue than format.
> 
> There is encryption possible in WebM though that's working with a EME
> DRM module.
> http://www.webmproject.org/docs/webm-encryption/
> 

> If he means data safety, that's something we can work on. We already
> have the CRC for checking. In the past we also discussed redundancy
> but it was ruled out (again, better handled outside of the file
> format).

forward error correction, that is to add redundancy to recover from
damaged or lost parts of an archived file or stream/track, is
something that sounds interresting. CRCs also exist at the video stream
(FFv1) layer. Theres currently no means to restore lost frames, slices
or disk sectors except through concealing them based on previous
frames. The existing CRCs are sufficient though to correct rare bit
errors, if that occurs in any actual use case.
Adding some layer of protection to protect from damaged or unreadable
disk sectors or other larger damges losslessly is possible and
interresting. Iam not sure at which layer that would be best to do
though.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange