Subject: [Cellar] flac document status

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 15:07:27 -0400

On the question of std vs informational, Murray, the Area Director asks:

> Who has implemented this, or is planning to implement it?  Could you
> include an "Implementation Status" section?

If there aren't many implementations, then having breaking changes in the
specification might not be so terrible.   That's not to say that we have to
break stuff, but if we did, then that wouldn't be as bad.

If there are many implementations, then the argument for Informational
(without IETF change control on this document), might be stronger.

I think that we concluded that we should go with standards track, but I guess
I'd say that the decision is not yet completely sealed.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Martijn van Beurden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 22:23:50 +0100

> > include an "Implementation Status" section?

If having full change control is indeed a requirement, then I think it is
quite clear this should be informational. A FLAC decoder has been built
into Android for more than 10 years now (starting with Android 3.1) so
there are at least 2 billion devices capable of playing FLAC around the
world. Another major OS having FLAC support out-of-the-box is Windows
starting with Windows 10. Also, FLAC decoders are ubiquitous these days in
car stereos (I know of at least Citroen, Ford and Tesla shipping it with
most infotainment systems), receivers, smart TVs and similar playback
hardware.

> I'd say that the decision is not yet completely sealed.

I know very little about this stuff, I just noticed the CELLAR charter
listed that it should be standard track, that's why I opened the pull
request. I closed it when you made a clear case that change control is
needed, and reopened it when Spencer said (as I understand it) that
informative is used when something is in need of documentation but is not
really endorsed by the IETF.

Anyway, I'm glad I didn't merge the change yet. Please let me know when you
need any more information on this matter.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:01:31 -0400

> If having full change control is indeed a requirement, then I think it
    > is quite clear this should be informational. A FLAC decoder has been

There is an aspect of judgement here, btw.
If we won't change bits on the wire, then there isn't really as much of a concern.

    > built into Android for more than 10 years now (starting with Android
    > 3.1) so there are at least 2 billion devices capable of playing FLAC

Yes, but that could be just one implementation, and it could be that for some
obscure corner of the spec, where we find that we have to make some fix, that
it might be that rolling out a fix isn't hard, given the Android ecosystem.
(Particularly, if the fix is security related)

    > these days in car stereos (I know of at least Citroen, Ford and Tesla
    > shipping it with most infotainment systems), receivers, smart TVs and
    > similar playback hardware.

Yeah, so these might be much harder to upgrade.

    > informative is used when something is in need of documentation but is
    > not really endorsed by the IETF.

Let's add an Implementation Status section.
I think that we'll prefer to go towards standards track if we can.

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

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:07:43 -0500

Just following up on one thing here.

> I think that we'll prefer to go towards standards track if we can.

Just by way of agreeing with my esteemed co-chair, who I saw for the first
time in two years last week in Vienna, so neither of us are holograms,

If this working group decides to break compatibility in a significant way,
that would be the critical factor in making this decision. Giving the IETF
change control doesn't mean that the IETF HAS to make incompatible changes,
only that it can, if that's the right thing to do.

Since most of the people who would be making that decision are already in
CELLAR, we really do control that.

IMO, of course.

Best,

Spencer

> _______________________________________________
> Cellar mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cellar
>