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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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.

(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
>