IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-04

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Fri, 18 November 2016 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=5130743977=jonathan@vidyo.com>
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 BDE6B1295FE for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:15:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 y-Nbf1Ob3hVL for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00198e01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00198e01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D36129537 for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:15:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0073109.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00198e01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id uAI7F8Pf029101; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 02:15:08 -0500
Received: from mail.vidyo.com ([162.209.16.214]) by mx0a-00198e01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 26nxwev4h4-1 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 18 Nov 2016 02:15:08 -0500
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Fri, 18 Nov 2016 01:15:07 -0600
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
Thread-Topic: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-04
Thread-Index: AQHSQHxXVG+Mzr7W8UuQWSNIZFkTm6DeupYA
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:15:06 +0000
Message-ID: <ECFBB0B5-4387-4638-918F-34FA2A1EFD52@vidyo.com>
References: <582D0B2A.4030304@xiph.org>
In-Reply-To: <582D0B2A.4030304@xiph.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [58.123.138.206]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1EA08D4D5050DD499D8C8C95ED77A036@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-11-18_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1611180132
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/fQNd06Oj4BUMen1Xf1ppn3NVdtg>
Cc: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] WGLC of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-04
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 07:15:13 -0000

> On Nov 17, 2016, at 10:43 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe@xiph.org> wrote:
> 
> Except for the issue of where the new test vectors should live, the chairs believe that this draft is ready to go. We would like to initiate a working group last call on draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-04 to help gather any remaining issues.
> 
> The draft can be found at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-04
> 
> Please send comments to the list by the end of the day on Dec. 1.

I have reviewed this document.

I haven't personally validated all the changes to the C code, but they seem plausible to me.  Each of the patches’ explanatory text also seems good.

However, I think the overview text could be clearer.

1. I assume none of these changes rise to the level that they would make any change to the textual description of the Opus codec?  This should probably be stated explicitly.

2. The abstract and introduction should mention that this document updates the normative behavior of the codec, including the test vectors.

3. The link to the properly-formatted patch matching the document should be mentioned somewhere other than in Section 5 — especially since it actually includes patches for all the sections of the document, not just Section 5 and above.  The introduction seems like a sensible place, perhaps.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email