Re: [codec] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08

Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@jmvalin.ca> Tue, 01 August 2017 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <jmvalin@jmvalin.ca>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620971321C3 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jmvalin-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FAnY2cfMyvqV for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x233.google.com (mail-it0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9EF1322E5 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Aug 2017 12:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 77so12750620itj.1 for <codec@ietf.org>; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 12:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jmvalin-ca.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+lMevIy0v0cRFwHCQhGqtcKpdAqC5HP63DBgibokKDU=; b=kkh7OEnxkPMyg0glbuLiv4+hrWN/y2sPbNXZshwjcHE4/0NeWaqaPf3XQ50DHOfpzX t0su0UNs6MLwXe/nFiVTWAjPWt0G4Ti6mZWV6tQTgXcn1wROohIcWBoyRCj6LDLvqFvF HLOYThVxAp34MRhEWCwjsgtg8WQzbV6dHvt8RCTrOOsbZFxWEWB5LphkPkl/PNVumLiz /kXxWlzn5I43QDTiPHytuImg3LYwyZjugEcdd5ZJ0LVJqvCF+c3pOnbK89ByR+TtbWHQ cR88IqMT1OZseBOCqHVC7XNWO/CGTEc/IfP9q7PaAAlaipOjDrFU2a4OkflHFyz7W5uQ fIMA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+lMevIy0v0cRFwHCQhGqtcKpdAqC5HP63DBgibokKDU=; b=obHn0LRYNw61dnmxKzzvh1rUNTymO9PsI0YWUY/o376ZPhjHZe7juPu2un7X4pm9TA Kc00vIFwuG46G4nV+aaPvaLBg0TzA1cleCNKyzh1+QWui5fBXbuzTzI06D5Ds6GsrS9y s7Z6wxMp90tBk57n2iab+9Aa91JZpYKWhuunVTa1DFsYm8l9s3UZeZfpHkV3GaK8Yt+I N/WWCTgQs89R5okUS/zv9s/DwyPjjHSQizHnGe5E4m/1GXan1n74ttQOdcFpbup1+cVH 1E+EO9DP40GWdZ34bU+eBlqj5HIEZydH2l47XwUhgFFsPjjTgskED2aU396d429c/oDl riow==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112xnm+bwWYxaml/J9U0LLTimbHwBplFuqF3tpGaVDKoEVY5TVsg +0MqYD54KTJY9vhmSog=
X-Received: by 10.36.53.141 with SMTP id k135mr2782969ita.176.1501614530546; Tue, 01 Aug 2017 12:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from panoramix.jmvalin.ca (modemcable067.31-56-74.mc.videotron.ca. [74.56.31.67]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s204sm1044357itb.13.2017.08.01.12.08.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Aug 2017 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, gen-art@ietf.org
References: <150161082225.9505.16606445945798880852@ietfa.amsl.com>
Cc: codec@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-codec-opus-update.all@ietf.org
From: Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin@jmvalin.ca>
Message-ID: <7a13a147-5be7-f15b-2d93-88b0922ef543@jmvalin.ca>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:08:48 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <150161082225.9505.16606445945798880852@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/dfYkxx3VQiZfgUyJWXRFceUcVNA>
Subject: Re: [codec] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/codec/>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 19:08:53 -0000

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the review. The main issue with including uuencoded
testvectors in the document is that it would cause the RFC to be around
32000 pages long. That's why RFC6716 included the source code, but not
the test vectors. Back then, we were told that the meeting material was
the only place we could put the test vectors. I don't really like doing
that, but it still beats the other options I'm aware of (unless I missed
something).

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

On 01/08/17 02:07 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review result: Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 2017-08-01
> IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-09
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary: Ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC
> 
> This document is straightforward in the changes it is making to OPUS.
> 
> My only note of sadness is that it continues to use a documentation mechanism
> started by RFC6716 of effectively making a normative reference to the
> _proceedings_ of previous IETF meetings. (Note that this document does this
> twice: once for the patch file, which is a convenience - the information is in
> the draft, and once for the updated test vectors. This is _not_ a convenience,
> the information is not in the draft. If, for whatever reason, the proceedings
> URL could not be retrieved, someone could not verify their implementation with
> the updated test vectors).
> 
> On the one hand, we've set the precedent, and we could agree to just let this
> go (I'm recommending that to the IESG with this review). On the other hand, we
> could make things _slightly_ better (or perhaps just different) by putting the
> test vectors in the doc as an appendix as a uuencoded compressed tarball.
>