See Mo: inline for responses to cluster-wide questions. My responses are authoritative for FM. I think Jonathan will agree to this for LRR and VP9. Jonathan, please correct if you disagree.
________________________________ From: Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 7:08 PM To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.lennox=408x8....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <mzan...@cisco.com>; Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku) <snand...@cisco.com>; Espen Berger (espeberg) <espeb...@cisco.com>; Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zahed.sarker.i...@gmail.com>; Bernard Aboba <bernard.ab...@gmail.com>; Jonathan Lennox <jonathan.lenno...@gmail.com>; da...@vidyo.com <da...@vidyo.com>; dannyh...@google.com <dannyh...@google.com>; mflod...@google.com <mflod...@google.com>; hol...@google.com <hol...@google.com>; jus...@uberti.name <jus...@uberti.name>; rachel.hu...@huawei.com <rachel.hu...@huawei.com>; Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com>; Francesca Palombini <francesca.palomb...@ericsson.com>; Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries> Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org> Subject: Re: Cluster C324 questions: RFCs 9626 <draft-ietf-avtext-framemarking>, 9627 <draft-ietf-avtext-lrr>, and 9628 <draft-ietf-payload-vp9> Greetings, [Please note the new email address on our end.] A friendly reminder that this document set awaits author attention. 1) We are awaiting responses to document-specific author queries and updates from your reviews. Please see our document-specific emails for further information and reply in those threads. Mo: See my FM document-specific email responses sent yesterday. I don't have visibility to other documents in the cluster since I'm not an author, chair, or AD. But I'm happy to respond if you add me to those other document-specific emails. I think Jonathan will agree with my responses, as we have discussed this cluster together in November. 2) Note also that we are awaiting further guidance as to which action to take regarding this from Jonathan in response to our cluster-wide queries in this email thread: Mo: I think Jonathan will agree with my response below. > > On Nov 7, 2024, at 7:51 AM, Jonathan Lennox > <jonathan.lennox=408x8....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> 2) Please review the way bit names are treated throughout the cluster. >> Sometimes the >> names of the bits are included in parentheses (e.g., "the I (Independent >> Frame) and >> D (Discardable Frame) bits"), sometimes a pointer is given on where to see >> more about >> the bit (e.g., "B bit (described below"), sometimes the bit names are not >> included at >> all (e.g., "the D bit"), and sometimes we see the letters in quotes (e.g., >> the "D" bit). >> >> We suggest making these uses uniform and/or explaining them in one place and >> pointing the >> reader there for more information upon introduction of the bit in the >> document. Upon careful >> review, please let us know what updates are necessary using Old/New or by >> updating the XML >> files as necessary. > > That sounds good. Mo: I think Jonathan meant making these uniform as suggested sounds good. I don't think it's necessary to add a new section explaining them that all other sections refer to. It should be sufficient to include the bit name in parenthesis upon first use, i. e. "I (Independent) bit", then optionally omit (based on the editor's discretion of clarity versus verbosity) the bit name upon subsequent use without any further reference, i. e. "I bit". 3) Further note: We have received bounce-message notifications for Justin Uberti and Danny Hong on at least one email address listed. Could they each respond confirming receipt and letting us know how their contact information should appear in the documents themselves? Mo: I don't know the current contact information for those authors, but I know their affiliations have changed, so the original contact information is stale. Please see the AUTH48 status page for this cluster at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/C324 Thank you. Mo: Thank you, and apologies for the delay. RFC Editor/mf > On Nov 13, 2024, at 1:34 PM, Megan Ferguson <mfergu...@amsl.com> wrote: > > Jonathan, > > Thank you for your reply. > > Regarding the following question, please clarify how you would like us to > update or if you are planning to update the file yourself. > > RFC Editor/mf > > >> On Nov 7, 2024, at 7:51 AM, Jonathan Lennox >> <jonathan.lennox=408x8....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: >> >>> 2) Please review the way bit names are treated throughout the cluster. >>> Sometimes the >>> names of the bits are included in parentheses (e.g., "the I (Independent >>> Frame) and >>> D (Discardable Frame) bits"), sometimes a pointer is given on where to see >>> more about >>> the bit (e.g., "B bit (described below"), sometimes the bit names are not >>> included at >>> all (e.g., "the D bit"), and sometimes we see the letters in quotes (e.g., >>> the "D" bit). >>> >>> We suggest making these uses uniform and/or explaining them in one place >>> and pointing the >>> reader there for more information upon introduction of the bit in the >>> document. Upon careful >>> review, please let us know what updates are necessary using Old/New or by >>> updating the XML >>> files as necessary. >> >> That sounds good. >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
