Re: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-valin-codec-opus-update-00.txt

I generally approve of this draft. I have a few comments.

   - Section 4, in the source code lines:

This might be a little picky, but I suggest to remove the following line
  len--;
and replace the new line, "len -= p==255 ? 254: p;" with
  len -= p==255 ? 255: p+1;
or should it even be:
  len -= p;
?

   - Section 5, page 4:  "The code can be fixed by applying the following
   changes to like 70" - "like" should be "line".
   - Section 6. Can you describe how to remove the 180-degree phase shift?

Thanks,
Tina le Grand.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.org>wrote:

> Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
>
>> See these proposed fixes to the Opus RFC. These are minor changes to the
>> normative part of the reference implementation.
>>
>
> With my chair hat on:
>
> Although JDR originally said we would handle updates to RFC 6716 through
> the normal errata process [1], after conferring with our ADs, we decided to
> do them via a new draft, so that there was no question about overriding
> working group consensus.
>
> To that end, we'd like to run a consensus call to add a milestone for
> doing these updates. It would be helpful to have reviews of this document
> before doing that call. I propose we allow a month (until Sep. 1) for such
> reviews, and then run the call.
>
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/**documents/LIAISON/liaison-**
> 2012-09-21-codec-isoiec-jtc-**1sc-29wg-11-liaison-from-ietf-**
> codec-working-group-to-isoiec-**regarding-speech-and-audio-**
> coding-standardization-**attachment-1.pdf<https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2012-09-21-codec-isoiec-jtc-1sc-29wg-11-liaison-from-ietf-codec-working-group-to-isoiec-regarding-speech-and-audio-coding-standardization-attachment-1.pdf>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> codec mailing list
> codec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/codec<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>
>