IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Tue, 02 February 2016 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94CB1A0173; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:46:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 KBBEQ6LhTbGP; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:46:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1bon0732.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:732]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF1281A0171; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:46:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.162.235.146) by BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com (10.162.235.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.396.15; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:46:11 +0000
Received: from BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.235.146]) by BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.235.146]) with mapi id 15.01.0396.020; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:46:11 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, Ron <ron@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10.txt> (Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHRWUOYu4dc40trYEmucQwFwKPFWJ8R0sEAgAdxvQCAABqZAP//f0mA
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:46:10 +0000
Message-ID: <7A78CD5F-918E-42BF-9090-96C4E4B9DE87@stewe.org>
References: <20160113141506.11959.44750.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <56A92C39.7060206@nostrum.com> <20160129031044.GB3153@hex.shelbyville.oz> <56B116DA.9010507@nostrum.com> <56B12D2A.4020906@xiph.org>
In-Reply-To: <56B12D2A.4020906@xiph.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: xiph.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;xiph.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=stewe.org;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [50.174.30.183]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR17MB0275; 5:buNjcbX+SyYfIM7m0G1WwFLIVvIPllPhaCBYizEWXYrOTGE3SlNorP3wYlp0u7Ph0iHHDB2eW4/tPoSWIelTXworKaW63WulfM6SzxaIxfbPg51Xw/am6R01DZYN2/KXASyyRdzABn4DV7KfaW7BkQ==; 24:WBVHn3g/3pg73GpNvOu964VDjzm2JOQHGC/2AsK5k+1vwrmO0B5wdhflAFDROo8bYSJXVsXHDbWQx3aXAPQou4XKnV96Zeh3uyz5kqk7TjM=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR17MB0275;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 746107f1-c225-4c14-4b35-08d32c22a5be
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR17MB027559D32484D16CF1C3CFF8AEDF0@BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR17MB0275; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0275;
x-forefront-prvs: 084080FC15
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(24454002)(479174004)(54356999)(19580405001)(5008740100001)(19580395003)(36756003)(76176999)(5001960100002)(50986999)(86362001)(82746002)(66066001)(11100500001)(106116001)(99286002)(15975445007)(586003)(10400500002)(83716003)(2900100001)(2950100001)(1220700001)(102836003)(1096002)(77096005)(3846002)(33656002)(6116002)(5002640100001)(2906002)(3280700002)(3660700001)(40100003)(5001770100001)(122556002)(87936001)(92566002)(93886004)(5004730100002)(4326007)(189998001)(230783001)(104396002)(42262002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR17MB0275; H:BLUPR17MB0275.namprd17.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B87578792F4B5044B6C8FB8EEA4973C7@namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 02 Feb 2016 22:46:10.5281 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 865fc51c-5fae-4322-98ef-0121a85df0b6
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR17MB0275
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0KmdGDxiu4Zfve1tPMpV3ESPvYo>
Cc: "codec-chairs@ietf.org" <codec-chairs@ietf.org>, "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-codec-oggopus@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-codec-oggopus@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 22:46:37 -0000

See below:




On 2/2/16, 14:26, "codec on behalf of Timothy B. Terriberry" <codec-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:

>[…]
>
>We are able and willing. If adding an additional boilerplate text block 
>is not the way to go about it (and I have no particular ties to that 
>solution, we were simply doing what had been done before with RFC 6716), 
>what should we do?

Take the text, minus RFC boilerplate and formatting, and publish it wherever and however you want, but not in a form that could be confused with an RFC.  That’s a least my recollection of the spirit of the discussions we had when deliberating RFC 5377.  At the time, my recollection of the consensus was that we specifically DID NOT want to give open source folks the option to take an RFC and “run with it”.  Debian and its requirements were specifically mentioned then.

Stephan

>
>_______________________________________________
>codec mailing list
>codec@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email