IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08

"Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net> Mon, 14 August 2017 18:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4A61323C4 for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=ietf@kuehlewind.net header.d=kuehlewind.net
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 jjkNClvCdKdk for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kuehlewind.net (kuehlewind.net [83.169.45.111]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AEF91323C0 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=kuehlewind.net; b=EDYatSd4IYeM/5aqxXFFwn5gqBw0N34S8/IlJHqThEkQRDl6vYt0/K/dIa05DBvBSn9T8pQZ8zYJe8hs98uMT9aumcFJDCLRuhe3GqkR6zBKjh9Sz3Wxj3asv+HQHHLtgbLgBuO79mJ2TNs/q/DzyTiLwFQwezBKknqBoGWY7Zc=; h=Received:Received:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:X-Mailer:X-PPP-Message-ID:X-PPP-Vhost;
Received: (qmail 5374 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2017 20:13:24 +0200
Received: from p5dec2dc4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (HELO ?192.168.178.33?) (93.236.45.196) by kuehlewind.net with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 14 Aug 2017 20:13:24 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <ietf@kuehlewind.net>
In-Reply-To: <150161082225.9505.16606445945798880852@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 20:13:24 +0200
Cc: gen-art <gen-art@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <53D500C4-3DF4-472F-90F7-6E1BDEF60D5F@kuehlewind.net>
References: <150161082225.9505.16606445945798880852@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-PPP-Message-ID: <20170814181324.5369.17765@lvps83-169-45-111.dedicated.hosteurope.de>
X-PPP-Vhost: kuehlewind.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/iC98wGvDr5UFj-j75vPdJYQ6cuU>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 18:13:29 -0000

Hi Robert,

thanks for your review! While I share your „sadness“, putting it in the document does not seem to be an option. 

But maybe this is actually a request for the tools team to provide another way to upload files (by wg chairs) than just the proceedings. I guess today people would rather upload something to GitHub but that also not something one would want to reference in an RFC. Is there actually still a way to request a svn repo for wgs? or should this be integrated somehow in the datatracker..? I believe we discussed this in the IESG briefly when we discuss GitHub. But I guess I, or actually you, could bring this up again. However, in this case it seems more like a tooling issue for me.

Mirja


> Am 01.08.2017 um 20:07 schrieb Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>:
> 
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2017-08-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-09
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC
> 
> This document is straightforward in the changes it is making to OPUS.
> 
> My only note of sadness is that it continues to use a documentation mechanism
> started by RFC6716 of effectively making a normative reference to the
> _proceedings_ of previous IETF meetings. (Note that this document does this
> twice: once for the patch file, which is a convenience - the information is in
> the draft, and once for the updated test vectors. This is _not_ a convenience,
> the information is not in the draft. If, for whatever reason, the proceedings
> URL could not be retrieved, someone could not verify their implementation with
> the updated test vectors).
> 
> On the one hand, we've set the precedent, and we could agree to just let this
> go (I'm recommending that to the IESG with this review). On the other hand, we
> could make things _slightly_ better (or perhaps just different) by putting the
> test vectors in the doc as an appendix as a uuencoded compressed tarball.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email