Re: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-oggopus-00.txt

Gregory Maxwell <> Thu, 12 July 2012 01:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AED811E816D for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Zrj-tOabhF1 for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C3311E8159 for <>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:18:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKT/; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:18:35 PDT
Received: from ([fe80::c821:7c81:f21f:8bc7]) by ([fe80::fc92:eb1:759:2c72%11]) with mapi; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:16:41 -0700
From: Gregory Maxwell <>
To: Ron <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 18:16:41 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-oggopus-00.txt
Thread-Index: Ac1fxvE9z41B5haNQBuU5By+cw9gAgABFRA5
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>, <20120712003438.GR18009@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20120712003438.GR18009@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-oggopus-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 01:18:03 -0000

Ron [] wrote:
> If we add a new mapping family, then we sort of have created a stream
> that is not really backward compatible with previously existing code.

Thats unavoidable.  Say I tell you now that mapping 3 is B-format.
None of your existing code would know that. It wouldn't be able to
play it.  Not playing it is the right thing to do. rather than sending
W out the left speaker and Z out the right and what have you.

Other than perhaps adding more channels in the mapping 1
sequence (e.g. for counts > 8) I would not generally expect
other new mappings to actually be usefully compatible without
actually knowing what they were.

> One alternative is we could just revise the spec to define new families
> without bumping the minor version.  Since they'd basically act as you
>suggest for things that don't recognise them anyway in that case.
> I likewise don't actually expect we will ever find a reason to bump
> the minor version 

Nah, thats the reason they're reserved.  You can think of it is though
they are all _already_ defined, but the devilish fog of causality
prevents you from seeing the definitions as of yet, and thus
you can't implement support for them.