Re: [codec] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-13: (with COMMENT)

[joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

On 2/16/16 6:27 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote:
> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Scott Bradner performed the OPSdir review.
>>
>> There was an ask for a paragraph covering the following
>>
>> That said, I wonder if it would be possible to as a OAM-like ability to
>> support "in-band" condition information - for example by adding an OAM
>> channel to the channel mapping function (i.e. the "Opus Channel Mapping
>> Families" registry) where the definition would be that the channel is for
>> the use of OAM services and is otherwise passed unmodified.  Having the
>> ability to have real time "what the customer is seeing" RTCP like, but
>> with more expansion abilities, feedback could be quite helpful
>> operations-wise
>>
>> which has not yet come to conclusion.
> 
> I'll attempt to summarize where I think the discussion currently is:
> both Scott and I agreed that it is probably too late in the process to
> make changes to the channel mappings in this document, and that could be
> done later via the IANA registry. A general paragraph stating that
> someone should be thinking about OAM type things would be welcome, but I
> don't feel qualified to write one, and we currently lack a volunteer to
> do so.

yup, I don't hold a discuss so I'm not an obstacle to progress, but if
we come up with that either collectively or indivudally then great.