[Matroska-devel] Request For Comment

Steve Lhomme slhomme at matroska.org
Fri Apr 15 14:53:03 CEST 2022

On 2022-04-02 12:40, hubblec4 via Matroska-devel wrote:
> Am 01.04.2022 um 14:15 schrieb Steve Lhomme:
>> Hi everyone,
>> As you probably know, we are working hard on the Matroska
>> specifications at the IETF. We already got EBML as a RFC [1]. We are
>> in the process of finalizing the main Matroska document. Before we
>> submit the document for formal review before "final" publishing, we
>> would like people who know a bit about Matroska (or not) to review the
>> current draft in case there are parts missing, hard to decipher or,
>> even worse, bugs.
>> This is a 200 pages document, so it may take a while. You can find
>> draft 09 at [2]. It should explain what is found in Matroska 1 to 4.
>> Some unused elements have been deprecated since the original informal
>> specifications. They can be found in Annex A.
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8794/
>> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cellar-matroska/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Matroska-devel mailing list
>> Matroska-devel at lists.matroska.org
>> https://lists.matroska.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/matroska-devel
>> Read Matroska-Devel on GMane:
>> http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.matroska.devel
> The Range and the Number of valid EBML IDs for one octect are still
> wrong.(Table 4)

You're referring to the EBML RFC, not this new Matroska one

The fix has been merged, but the errata has not been published yet. We 
wait in case we find more issue in Matroska related to EBML.

More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list