Subject: Re: [dispatch] Stephen Farrell's Yes on charter-ietf-cellar-00-00: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:18:59 -0500

(+dispatch for now; we will setup a cellar list shortly).

Does anyone have thoughts on Stephen's comment below?

Thanks!

Ben.

On 22 Oct 2015, at 8:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> charter-ietf-cellar-00-00: Yes
>

[...]

> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cellar/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I wonder is there any interest in the security of the archived
> stuff here, and whether the WG would want to possibly take
> that on, most likely later. I'm not saying they should, as that
> could be a lot of possibly contentious work, but if they did
> want to do it, it'd be good to say in the charter.

---

From: Steve Lhomme <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:02:44 +0200

>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-cellar/

Does he mean security as in only allowing certain people to access the
data ? IMO it's out of the scope and better handled out of the file
format/streaming. It's more a transport/storage issue than format.

There is encryption possible in WebM though that's working with a EME
DRM module.
http://www.webmproject.org/docs/webm-encryption/

If he means data safety, that's something we can work on. We already
have the CRC for checking. In the past we also discussed redundancy
but it was ruled out (again, better handled outside of the file
format).

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

-- 
Steve Lhomme
Matroska association Chairman

---

From: Michael Niedermayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:19:48 +0200

Resending my reply from the mail address thats subscribed to dispatch
after canceling the stuck reply

> but it was ruled out (again, better handled outside of the file

forward error correction, that is to add redundancy to recover from
damaged or lost parts of an archived file or stream/track, is
something that sounds interresting. CRCs also exist at the video stream
(FFv1) layer. Theres currently no means to restore lost frames, slices
or disk sectors except through concealing them based on previous
frames. The existing CRCs are sufficient though to correct rare bit
errors, if that occurs in any actual use case.
Adding some layer of protection to protect from damaged or unreadable
disk sectors or other larger damges losslessly is possible and
interresting. Iam not sure at which layer that would be best to do
though.

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:23:54 -0500

On 22 Oct 2015, at 16:19, Michael Niedermayer wrote:

[...]

> interresting. Iam not sure at which layer that would be best to do

For the record, I think Stephen was asking more about confidentiality 
than about error correction.

Do you think anything relative to error correction needs to be added to 
the charter? It seem to me that is something that could be added in a 
future recharter if people think something becomes needed beyond the 
currently planned work.

Ben.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:03:40 -0500

Hi,

I don't see a concrete change to the proposed charter from this 
conversation so far. I'm going to release this for external review. If 
further discussion suggests a change, we can deal with that along with 
other external review comments.

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Michael Niedermayer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:15:36 +0100

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 02:23:54PM -0500, Ben Campbell wrote:
> For the record, I think Stephen was asking more about
> confidentiality than about error correction.
> 

> Do you think anything relative to error correction needs to be added
> to the charter? It seem to me that is something that could be added
> in a future recharter if people think something becomes needed
> beyond the currently planned work.

the charter is fine, i just wanted to comment on "data safety", which
as it turns out the original question wasnt about ...

[...]

Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good.
Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart
then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.