[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
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8794.html#tableElementIDRanges

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.
https://github.com/ietf-wg-cellar/ebml-specification/pull/408


More information about the Matroska-devel mailing list