EOR (was: Re: [NUT-devel] a few things about nut.txt)

[Rich Felker]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 09:26:00PM +0100, Ivo wrote:
> > > +    EOR frames for non-subtitle streams are only valid at the end of
> > > the +    stream.
> >
> > It would be nice to have a note that they are syntactically valid but
> > that they need not be interpreted for compliance with the current
> > version of NUT and that processes generating NUT files MUST NOT write
> > EOR for non-subtitle streams.
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
> EOR frames for non-subtitle streams are syntactically valid, but, except
> for the last frame, they SHOULD be ignored by demuxers and MUST NOT be
> written by muxers.

No, ignoring them is semantically incorrect. Interpreting them should
just be completely outside the scope of the NUT 1.x spec. If we ever
make a NUT 2.0, at that time it might or might not make sense to
assign the natural meaning to them, but I'd be inclined against it
still.

In any case there's no reason to make any specification about what a
demuxer should do when it encounters data that's forbidden by the
requirements on the muxer. It's as stupid as the #1 spam-friendly
contradiction in ESMTP RFC, which says that the sender must use a
valid name in HELO, but also mandates that receiver must accept any
syntactically correct name in HELO...

Rich