Re: Proposed IETF working group for standardization of Matroska

Also, re: Standards Track specification, "Standards Track" refers to the
IETF activity and desired outcome. So because we are trying to get the
Matroska specification approved as an official IETF standard, all
activities are being conducted under the procedures for the Standards Track.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Tessa Fallon <[email protected]>
wrote:

>    1. Re: Proposed IETF working group for standardization of
>
>>       Matroska (Sebastian G. <bastik>)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 20:32:57 +0200
>> From: "Sebastian G. <bastik>" <[email protected]>
>> To: Discussion about the current and future development of Matroska
>>         <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [Matroska-devel] Proposed IETF working group for
>>         standardization of Matroska
>> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> 08.09.2015, 20:32 Tessa Fallon:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> > A new charter for an IETF working group to standardize FFV1, FLAC, and
>> > Matroska has been shared on the IETF Dispatch working group for review:
>> >
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/uTpBvSubeyDMTUAoupa5XZOS86Y
>> >
>> > If you're not already subscribed to the Dispatch mailing list, please
>> do so
>> > here:
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
>>
>> I had already subscribed to the Dispatch mailing list.
>>
>> Am I supposed to say something (in favor) of creating a working group,
>> even though I might not participate in working on anything regarding the
>> goal?
>>
>
> It is worthwhile for people to know that there is support for the
> initiative, so saying something as simple as "+1" is helpful :)
>
>>
>> I'm not sure if I have anything to contribute nor do I know if I would
>> find the time. I might be busy for a longer period of time and not be
>> able to give any input. I'm not even sure if I am willing to give input
>> for various reasons.
>>
>> > I look forward to your feedback and to discussion of the charter.  If
>> > you're interested in working on this, I especially hope to hear from
>> you!
>>
>> >> *Proposed Name*: CELLAR: Codec Encoding for LossLess Archiving and
>> Realtime
>> >> transmission
>>
>> Does this name have any relevance later on? I don't know what 'Codec
>> Encoding' would mean.
>>
>> STELLAR: STructured Encoding for LossLess Archiving and Realtime
>> transmisson
>>
>
> The name doesn't have any significance other than as an identifier within
> the IETF.  BTW, I love STELLAR!  I'm certainly happy to mention it as an
> alternative.
>
>>
>> >> Standards Track specification [...]
>>
>> What do these sentences mean?
>>
>> Standardization of the track specification? The current 'standard' of
>> the track specification?
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Sebastian G. (bastik)
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Matroska-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Matroska-devel Digest, Vol 144, Issue 4
>> **********************************************
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Matroska-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
Read Matroska-Devel on GMane: http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel