Subject: [Cellar] IANA Registry

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 09:26:28 +0200

Hi,

During the review of EBML drafts, Robert Sparks suggested that we may 
not need one (two in fact) if we decide that EBML is only for Matroska 
and WebM. The idea being that if EBML is not considered a general 
purpose format (even though it can) it may be easier to get the spec 
adopted by the IETF, otherwise it needs a lot more scrutiny.

I don't think it means people can use EBML for other things, so I think 
it's fine.

Any opinion on this ?
We have an "issue" to solve about this 
https://github.com/cellar-wg/ebml-specification/issues/236

---

From: Jerome Martinez <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 10:27:50 +0200

On 08/05/2019 09:26, Steve Lhomme wrote:
> The idea being that if EBML is not considered a general purpose format 
> (even though it can) it may be easier to get the spec adopted by the 
> IETF, otherwise it needs a lot more scrutiny.

You mean that having a IANA registry would slow down the process? I 
didn't get that it has such impact, as the doc should be same in both 
cases IMO, IANA being just a registry for avoiding name collisions.
IMO it would be a nice to have, but not the priority, the priority being 
Matroska/WebM.

Jérôme

---

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 10:44:54 +0200

> IMO it would be a nice to have, but not the priority, the priority being 

No, the idea was to reduce the scope of the EBML spec, so that it only 
covers EBML and Matroska. Making it a general purpose format, means that 
will need to be a lot more solid (not that we don't want that) and will 
require longer/more in-depth reviewing.

---

From: Michael Bradshaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 10:10:57 -0700

*From: *Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>

> Any opinion on this ?

I, for one, am in favor of making EBML specific to Matroska/WebM.
Simplifying the scope of the project would help forward progress to be
made. Additionally, I'm not sure how useful it is to make EBML a general
purpose format. It's been around for quite some time but has seen limited
adoption (if any) outside of Matroska/WebM. Personally, I would prefer to
put CELLAR's resources behind standardizing Matroska/WebM, and only after
that's done work on making EBML a general purpose format (if there's
sufficient interest and it's worth the effort).

--Michael

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 14:43:19 -0400

Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >>> The idea being that if EBML is not considered a general purpose
    >>> format (even though it can) it may be easier to get the spec adopted
    >>> by the IETF, otherwise it needs a lot more scrutiny.
    >>
    >> IMO it would be a nice to have, but not the priority, the priority
    >> being Matroska/WebM.

    > covers EBML and Matroska. Making it a general purpose format, means
    > that will need to be a lot more solid (not that we don't want that) and
    > will require longer/more in-depth reviewing.

So text that says it is general purpose would instead say something like:

   EBML is an extensible format for the preservation of audiovisual materials.  It is
   used as a container by the Matroska, FFV1 and FLAC codecs.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-