Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 29, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:

> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>> One suggestion on it ... I suspect it would be easier to get both the RTP
> > payload and storage format done quicker if they were separate into two drafts.
> > Clearly the payload needs to be done in PAYLOAD WG but folks might want to
> > ping the RAI and APPS ADs about where it makes sense to do the storage format
> > - might want to consider Apps for that.
> 
> This makes a lot of sense. For the storage format, RFC 3533 (Ogg) was done in transport, IIRC. But Apps might be better. Should we be targeting standards-track or informational for it?


The RTP payload needs to be standards track but for the storage format, I can't see much advantage of PS over Info and Info is typically faster but not a big deal either way. I really don't know where the best place to do it is because I suspect there are multiple places where it could be done. But in cases like this, I like to go ask the ADs what they want and then you don't have any later surprises and when people ask you why you choose X instead of Y, you can just tell them the ADs told you so and not have to spend time debating it.