Subject: Re: [appsdir] [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-14

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:49:17 -0700

Hi Claudio,
At 10:25 02-06-2012, Claudio Allocchio wrote:
>This draft follows a quite unusual specification method: I see the 
>real specification as is "a piece of software code", and the text 
>specification is intented as an extended "comment" to the software 
>code itself. I personally do not have a strong opinion if this 
>method is an acceptable IETF practice; for sure it is the opposite 
>of what's normally done, where the normative text gives instruction 
>and suggestions on how to write the indipendent implementations 
>(mostly software code) later on. If this is already common

I'll comment on the above in general terms.  For some background, it 
was argued that draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme cannot be a 
Proposed Standard as interoperability cannot be demonstrated.  The 
source code is normative for draft-ietf-codec-opus-14.  That rules 
out the two independent implementations test which is the usual rule 
to determine whether a specification is ok.

Several of the DISCUSS criteria at 
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html may be 
applicable in such cases.  If I go by what APPSDIR is tasked to do, I 
cannot apply that criteria.  If I wanted to give the Apps ADs a sense 
of what might qualify as a DISCUSS, I would use that criteria.  If I 
wanted to give the WG a heads-up on a DISCUSS, I would use that 
criteria.  BTW, a DISCUSS is only a problem if the author does not 
know how to address it.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 15:37:11 -0400

>> This draft follows a quite unusual specification method: I see the real
>> specification as is "a piece of software code", and the text specification
>> is intented as an extended "comment" to the software code itself. I
>> personally do not have a strong opinion if this method is an acceptable IETF
>> practice; for sure it is the opposite of what's normally done, where the
>> normative text gives instruction and suggestions on how to write the
>> indipendent implementations (mostly software code) later on. If this is
>> already common
>
> I'll comment on the above in general terms.  For some background, it was
> argued that draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme cannot be a Proposed
> Standard as interoperability cannot be demonstrated.  The source code is
> normative for draft-ietf-codec-opus-14.  That rules out the two independent
> implementations test which is the usual rule to determine whether a
> specification is ok.

I disagree.  One can certainly use someone's source code as
documentation to write entirely new source code on one's own.  This is
especially true if the programming language is different (but I think
it can be done even if not).  "Documentation" written as C code can be
used to write an implementation in Java, or Ruby, or FORTRAN, and we
could certainly consider those to be "independent" implementations.

I've gotten about halfway through reviewing this document, and I think
their approach is reasonable.  I'm not sure what other ADs will think.

Barry

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 13:13:18 -0700

Hi Barry,
>could certainly consider those to be "independent" implementations.

I'll say Yes to the argument as above approach is commonly used for 
open source software.

Best regards,
-sm

---

From: Claudio Allocchio <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:07:10 +0200 (CEST)

> could certainly consider those to be "independent" implementations.

Sure, you can implement the codec using a different language and using the 
original C code as a flow-chart instead of a code itself... mmmh yes, why 
they did not wrote the detailed flow chart instead of the C code? I guess 
because it is much simpler and they had it already at hand.

> their approach is reasonable.

As I said... "unusual approach", which does not mean "unreasonable 
approach". That's also why I suggested in case an IESG note about it in 
the document, just in case...

> I'm not sure what other ADs will think.

I'm also quite curious to see their opinion.

> Barry

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claudio Allocchio             G   A   R   R          [email-masked]
                         Senior Technical Officer
tel: +39 040 3758523      Italian Academic and       G=Claudio; S=Allocchio;
fax: +39 040 3758565        Research Network         P=garr; A=garr; C=it;

            PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca