Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 18 Jan 2016, at 5:35, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> Hm. I was confused. This document is about embedding OPUS (a
> standards-track document) inside of OGG (an informational); I was
> thinking of the precedent of embeedding video formats (informational 
> at
> best) inside RTP (a standards-track), with the document specifying the
> embedding being standards-track.
>
> So the precedent is not a precedent. My apologies.

There may be another. The Ogg media type registrations (RFC 5334, and 
the obsoleted RFC 3534) are standards track, and normatively reference 
RFC 3533.
>
> (I don't have a strong opinion on which way it should go, and am happy
> to let the desire of the authors be a guideline.)
>
>
> Den 17. jan. 2016 22:04, skrev Ron:
>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 08:15:33PM +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> Den 15. jan. 2016 23:26, skrev Joel M. Halpern:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>>
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10
>>>>  Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec
>>>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>>>> Review Date:
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 27-January-2016
>>>> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>>>>
>>>> Summary:
>>>>  This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed 
>>>> Standard.
>>>>  The reviewer believes the status issues needs to be addressed, and
>>>> would like the minor issue identified below discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Major issues:
>>>>  I do not see how we can have a standards track document for using 
>>>> an
>>>> Informational format.  RFC 3533 is Informational.  At the very 
>>>> least,
>>>> the last call needed to identify the downref to RFC 3533.  (It is 
>>>> not
>>>> clear whether the reference to RFC 4732 needs to be normative or 
>>>> could
>>>> be informative.)
>>>
>>> I agree with the need to have the downref be explicit, but this has 
>>> been
>>> the norm since the IETF first decreed that RTP encapsulations should 
>>> be
>>> standards track.
>>>
>>> I believe you were on the IESG at the time, too... it was that long 
>>> ago.
>>
>> I don't think anyone would have any objection to seeing RFC 3533 
>> progress
>> to standards track either, but our understanding was that this was 
>> not a
>> strict prerequisite for the CODEC WG publishing this document.  And 
>> it's
>> not quite clear if CODEC would actually be the right group to do that
>> work for 3533.  Maybe CELLAR would be a better fit of the currently
>> active groups?
>>
>> For RFC 4732, informative seems correct to me.  Not everything in 
>> that
>> document is relevant to this situation, and there may be things 
>> relevant
>> to specific implementations or users of this spec which aren't wholly
>> covered there either (including novel attack methods that nobody has
>> thought of previously).  It's a topic that implementors should be 
>> aware
>> of, but we can't really mandate "if you do this you will be safe", 
>> nor
>> "if you don't do this, you won't" in a generally applicable way.  
>> Much
>> will depend on the specifics of the actual user and use case.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ron
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art