IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Tue, 02 February 2016 22:51 UTC

Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.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 B5E7B1A0197; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:51:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.313
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.313 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 M7oDaLfiNdSX; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 543861A0196; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 14:51:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D74C4042; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:51:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yN5kn0rhQOI3; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:51:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.252.26.95] (corp.mtv2.mozilla.com [63.245.221.32]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B33ACC3FE0; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 22:51:21 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <56B132E9.504@xiph.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 14:51:21 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.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
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> <7A78CD5F-918E-42BF-9090-96C4E4B9DE87@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <7A78CD5F-918E-42BF-9090-96C4E4B9DE87@stewe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/RcYuDux0NukbMzu3HzAgyBBL3TI>
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 22:51:26 -0000

Stephan Wenger wrote:
> 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.

Is it your opinion that the XML source for the latest draft (which 
includes instructions to produce the boilerplate and formatting, but not 
the actual boilerplate and formatting) would qualify as "not in a form 
that could be confused with an RFC"?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email