Re: [codec] [Matroska-devel] Opus in Matroksa Cont.

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Mon, 08 July 2013 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.org>
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 422B421F9C85 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:26:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.677
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ss1Y3qqqr7C2 for <codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx1.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6007C21F9BFB for <codec@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.250.6.54] (unknown [63.245.220.240]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx1.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 577FFF217D; Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51DB0446.2080807@xiph.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 11:26:14 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.16.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Discussion about the current and future development of Matroska <matroska-devel@lists.matroska.org>
References: <CAJGH+UvoBiFzjuPtJq1078OsZQTzmic1UT+02HV4jQ=eN=ydRw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXsMFK41S_qdwyRxSM4jmg4yq+0-gt-m34ay4sXhQ4D=Zntcg@mail.gmail.com> <CANPayMR89p+=QjL0o3tkEEMVsScA2-H=ruD=tbaPUb8LUhjuRA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXsMF+Awr5A7HYLLVrG1NSa1jy-Lbay_b69wfepYu9SqmPXhg@mail.gmail.com> <CANPayMQRCC86UAKNd1CuMe5orvjX5ioAXAS9Hbr4jqduqjQZug@mail.gmail.com> <CAJGH+UvbP=7wHhHL=Av0rKO6NWhSZ6KcLn4EZLsD=XqkpAV9yQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXsMFKCMuYaps7QmOUy5fQ-7eFut0k2cuc1QhKStboAPLqeZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJGH+Us284VdUKP-FXZ_K+ozVvJjs9Z=FuwuZ4Hsif3pYW_8gg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOXsMFLXZVbaknO395WEM92xm+=U0ARjWrt9FR6ftq0Ef2yrig@mail.gmail.com> <CAJGH+Uv8R1BGOzxyPzN=riuHmX28eS9aJiuy+NDe7BgKfCKgCA@mail.gmail.com> <51AD158F.7040302@mozilla.com> <CAOXsMFL9rgPUtHbiXYXiKM7KpTyy3iTO8Kv-kW21twAr_qv_bw@mail.gmail.com> <CANPayMR9P3vSWoDXP5HdDvxWztTEFQ-W_HNomc_Ueiswj_J6Tw@mail.gmail.com> <51D71FCE.5040207@xiph.org> <CANPayMQDZy2_kDD6wr-w5vjX8p=E4JQJ0_fO0ix3XUjA4zUiAg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANPayMQDZy2_kDD6wr-w5vjX8p=E4JQJ0_fO0ix3XUjA4zUiAg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: codec@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] [Matroska-devel] Opus in Matroksa Cont.
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:26:40 -0000

Moritz Bunkus wrote:
> I think you misunderstood me. I did not mean to say that the Opus
> specs (any of them) should be changed. I only meant the wording in the
> _Matroska_ specs for the newly-introduced "CodecDelay" element[1]
> which, at the moment, reads as follows:
>
>> CodecDelay is the delay in nanoseconds to add to each Block timestamp.
>> The value should be small so the muxing of tracks with the same actual
>> timestamp are in the same Cluster.
>
> I think this wording is extremely misleading and does not really allow
> the use of this element to hold Opus' pre-skip value -- though it has
> been our intention to store just that in it.
>
> This is purely a matter internal to the Matroska team and specs and
> has nothing to do with any of the Opus RFCs and drafts.

Ah! Sorry for the noise, I did indeed confuse the antecedent. If you do 
find things that are unclear or that could be improved in the IETF 
drafts, please don't hesitate to let us know. More review is always 
appreciated.

> Kind regards,
> mosu
>
> [1] http://www.matroska.org/technical/specs/index.html