Subject: Re: [Cellar] An attempt at EBML specification in RFC form

From: Reto Kromer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:49:15 +0200

Oops, sorry! I corrected more or less the same on GitHub before
noticing this email... Reto

Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

>Dave Rice wrote:
>>% Title = "Extensible Binary Meta Language"
>>% abbrev = "EBML"
>>% category = "info"
>
>This should be "std" (for Standards Track, instead of 
>Informational, as we agreed when adding the milestone).
>
>>% docName = ""
>
>This should be something like "draft-<first author's 
>surname>-cellar-ebml-00". The use of an author's name indicates 
>that this is an individual draft. If it is formally adopted as 
>a working group draft, it will become 
>"draft-ietf-cellar-ebml-00" instead. The trailing -00 is the 
>version number, which you will increment each time you submit a 
>new version to the datatracker.
>
>>% ipr= "trust200902"
>
>Unless you're updating an old RFC (which you're not), this is 
>the correct thing to use.
>
>>% area = ""
>
>CELLAR is in the Applications and Real-Time Area, so "art" is 
>the correct thing here. You can find this information on the 
>charter page for CELLAR in the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/cellar/charter/
>
>>Also, I had used Steve as the author, but who I’m unclear on who are the
>authors of the EBML specification. Steve? Moritz?
>
> From a technical point of view, the authors/editors are the 
>people who must sign off during the AUTH48 process (the last 
>step before publication by the RFC Editor) and respond to 
>inquiries such as errata. One author is required to approve 
>posting an updated version of a draft to the datatracker. All 
>authors are required to approve the document during AUTH48.
>
> From a policy point of view, exactly who should be an author 
>or editor is somewhat subjective. You can find some guidance in 
>various places:
>
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-3
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/old/policy.html#policy.authlist
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-whats-an-author
>
>(that last one is an individual draft, and thus only represents 
>that individual's opinion, rather than the consensus of any 
>working group or of the IETF as a whole)
>
>Since we have not yet formally adopted your draft as a 
>working-group draft, and it is still an individual draft, the 
>choice of authors/editors is "whoever wants to be". It is the 
>WG chairs' responsibility to appoint authors/editors when a 
>draft is formally adopted, but unless there is some specific 
>reason to do otherwise, this is usually just the same authors 
>and editors who contributed the individual draft. Once adopted, 
>the authors/editors are required to follow the guidelines in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2418#section-6.3
>
>_______________________________________________
>Cellar mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar
>

AV Preservation by reto.ch
chemin du Suchet 5 | 1024 Ecublens | Switzerland
Web: https://reto.ch | Twitter: @retoch