Re: [codec] WGLC #2 for draft-ietf-codec-opus-10

[Jean-Marc Valin <[e-mail]>]

This new draft addresses issues that were raised during the first WGLC
by the WG participants and chairs, as well as 3GPP and ITU-T SG16
liaisons. It also fixes several issues that were discovered during
extensive testing of the code. While most of the code modifications were
either encoder changes or reformatting changes, there were a few decoder
changes. Among the changes:
- Fixes for several glitches caused by mode switching and corner cases
(changes bit-stream for SILK-only stereo and hybrid stereo modes, other
modes are unaffected)
- Implementation of CBR for SILK-only, which means that CBR is now
available in all modes
- The code has been checked on multiple architectures, including an
automated build system on x86 and SPARC (https://mf4.xiph.org/jenkins/)
- A single set of opus_* types throughout the code
- Test vectors are now provided (on the website for size reasons)
- Improved documentation of both the encoder and decoder

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

On 31/10/11 08:58 PM, Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> The chairs would like to initiate a ~3-week WGLC on
> draft-ietf-codec-opus-10
> (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus/) which will end
> November 19, coincident with the conclusion of the Taipei IETF.
> 
> Please note that this document has several IPR claims against it:
> 
> Xiph.org:    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1524/
> Broadcom:    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1526/
> Skype:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1602/
> Qualcomm:    https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1520/
> 
> The IETF cannot take a position on validity of these claims. It is up to
> IETF participants to make their own decisions. Participants are
> encouraged to form an opinion about whether you would like to proceed
> with publication of this document under these declarations, or whether
> you would like to suggest changes, which you should do during the last
> call period. As always, we will proceed based on consensus of the
> working group.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
> 
>