Subject: [codec] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08: (with COMMENT)
From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked], Tim Terriberry <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 09:40:46 -0700
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for producing this specification. I have some questions, but nothing at
Discuss level.

I have no idea what an “extreme bitstream” is. Aren’t they all pretty much 0s
and 1s?

More seriously, it would be nice to know what about the bitstream is extreme.
Googling for ‘opus “extreme bitstream”’ turns up one hit for side effects from
a drug being tested, so that wasn’t much help.

Is there an obvious way that the decoder can know whether audio will be
downmixed outside the decoder? Section 10 thinks decoders can know that,
apparently.

In the security considerations, why is it highly unlikely that the read-only
table will be placed next to sensitive data? I’m not balloting Discuss on this
because the assertion is nested in a reported vulnerability with no known
exploit, but I am curious.