[codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 14 June 2018 20:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE4A130E70; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3sJvUE77vAfG; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06AA0130E98; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com []) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w5EKKBIa048896 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:20:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [] claimed to be []
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D2EA6E27-A67B-4786-BE7B-AE317665B68B"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Message-Id: <05380CB5-0261-47DC-B578-9BE7C21CAB16@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:20:10 -0500
To: draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics.all@ietf.org, codec@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/EubNJZQIUFtJAi3zm1QhauO1T84>
Subject: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/codec/>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:20:18 -0000


This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06. Overall the draft is in good shape. I just have a couple of minor comments/questions, and a few editorial comments.




*** Substantive ***:

§3.2, last sentence: "
Also note that the total output channel number, C, MUST be set in the 3rd field of the identification header.”

Is that MUST intended as a new normative requirement? The wording makes it seem more like a statement of fact. (The prefix of “Also note that…” tends to suggest the sentence is an FYI rather than a normative requirement.

§4: I am a little confused by the MAYs in this section. Are there other alternatives? Is this an example approach? A sentence or two of context would be helpful.

*** Editorial ***:

§2: Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174 unless there is a reason to do otherwise. (I note at least one lower case normative keyword (“should”); there may be more.


- first paragraph: First sentence is a fragment. Should there be a conjunction between the last two values in the list of allowed numbers of channels? (The pattern repeats in §3.2)

- figure 1: It would be helpful to define “order” and “degree” (defined in figure 2) prior to using them.

§5.2, first sentence: Missing article before “Treatment”.

§7: s/ “need take” / “need to take"