Re: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-09

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Here are my comments to your responses to my editorial comments. As 
before, I removed sections that do not seem to need further comment.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 11 Dec 2015, at 16:16, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

[...]

> Editorial
>> =========

[...]

>
>
>> - 5, steps 2 and 3:
>> These steps in combination seem to say “ decode at the highest 
>> available
>> supported rate that the hardware can handle.” If so, the wording 
>> could
>> be simplified.
>
>
> It is a little bit more complicated. There are two rates here: one 
> used for decoding, and one used for playback. The difference between 
> steps 2 and 3 is that in step 3, the hardware's highest available 
> sample rate is not one of the rates supported by Opus decoding. For 
> example, if the highest available sample rate the hardware can handle 
> is 32 kHz, then this is not a "supported rate" (i.e., not supported by 
> Opus decoding), so step 2 does not apply and step 3 does. Step 3 says 
> to decode at the next highest "supported rate", which would be 48 kHz, 
> and then resample to a rate the hardware can handle (in this case 32 
> kHz).
>
> I don't think that's equivalent to your summary of the two steps.

I think I see. The point is that you decode rate still does not match 
the hardware rate, thus the resampling? OTOH, I now find myself confused 
by "next highest supported rate above this". Does "this" refer to the 
"hardware’s highest available sample rate"? So the decode rate is 
always equal to or higher than the hardware playback rate?

[...]
>
>
>> -10, last paragraph:
>>
>> Updates, or extends? If the former, the draft needs an “Updates RFC
>> 5334” field in the initial heading.

I didn't see a response to this one.