There's a typo in "specification required". Otherwise, It think it's
probably ready for IETF last call. Please submit when you are ready.
Thanks!
Ben.
On 12 Jan 2016, at 15:17, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
Ben Campbell wrote:
To quote the attached diff:
-Implementations SHOULD reject ID headers which do not contain
enough
data for
- these fields, even if they contain a valid Magic Signature.
+Implementations SHOULD reject streams with ID headers that do not
contain
+ enough data for these fields, even if they contain a valid Magic
Signature.
I don't find that in the attached diff.
I meant the one that was attached to the e-mail to which you were
responding:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg03150.html
Sorry for being unclear.
application-level assumptions I'm not sure I'm comfortable writing
normative text around. Any ideas for a better way to phrase this?
"treat as invalid"?
I can work with that.
That text looks good, except that I would avoid normative language:
s/ "IANA SHALL..."/"IANA is requested to..."
s/"All maintenance within and additions to the contents of this name
space MUST be according"/"Modifications to this registry follow..."
Normative language removed.
Either, really. But obviously the 6716 was accepted, so it would be
easier to accept due to precedent. The question I have is whether
that
precedent applies here. And you will recall that there was some
tooth-gnashing over it for 6716 :-)
I remember. I think the precedent does apply, since the issue is
including the RFC with the code package, not whether or not the RFC
itself contains code.
I'm curious--are there no other RFCs distributed in Debian?
Ron may have a better idea of real numbers, but it is certainly an
issue that has come up before. See
<https://wiki.debian.org/NonFreeIETFDocuments>, which links to a list
of bugreports. As Ron points out, there are a few RFCs that are
distributed because they included additional grants (after which the
original grants in draft-ietf-codec-opus and this draft were modeled).
It does not appear as if that page has been updated since RFC 6716 was
published, though.
I'll let that (as updated) go to IETF LC. But don't be surprised if
there's further discussion to be had here.
I fully expect it.
Additional changes for the above attached. If there are no more
comments, I can publish a new version with all of these included.
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
