IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-09

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Mon, 21 December 2015 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.org>
X-Original-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88EFF1ACDA0; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:43:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 dutk-_cIchna; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.scl3.mozilla.com [63.245.214.156]) (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 2F70E1ACD9F; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:43:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost6.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F42C21D4; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mozilla.org
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HTLgG5ES2YOa; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:43:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.11.11] (pool-71-120-21-208.washdc.east.verizon.net [71.120.21.208]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.scl3.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECA76C112D; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:43:33 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <56787285.7010803@xiph.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:43:33 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <86ACD2D0-02B6-473E-9E35-B9980166D9A0@nostrum.com> <566B4B47.9010809@xiph.org> <02FE33D2-476B-4CD5-927C-63BC3D4D4D25@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <02FE33D2-476B-4CD5-927C-63BC3D4D4D25@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/hPvc3LCazrRY6iQyWtfCyw8wkHo>
Cc: codec@ietf.org, draft-ietf-codec-oggopus.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-09
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:43:36 -0000

A fast response because these are easy:

Ben Campbell wrote:
> I think I see. The point is that you decode rate still does not match
> the hardware rate, thus the resampling? OTOH, I now find myself confused
> by "next highest supported rate above this". Does "this" refer to the
> "hardware’s highest available sample rate"? So the decode rate is always
> equal to or higher than the hardware playback rate?

Correct (except possibly if the hardware supports rates higher than 48 
kHz, in which case step 4 might apply).

>>> -10, last paragraph:
>>>
>>> Updates, or extends? If the former, the draft needs an “Updates RFC
>>> 5334” field in the initial heading.
>
> I didn't see a response to this one.

The response was:

>> Added the field.

Or, from the diff:

>> -<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-09">
>> +<rfc ipr="trust200902" category="std" docName="draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-09"
>> + updates="5334">

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email