Re: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

The address for <[e-mail]> bounced. I see the shepherd mentioned that he was unable to contact Michael. That will be inconvenient once we reach the Auth48 state; I encourage the chairs and co-author to please keep trying.

Thanks!

Ben.


> On Jun 14, 2018, at 3:20 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06. Overall the draft is in good shape. I just have a couple of minor comments/questions, and a few editorial comments.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> ————————————————
> 
> *** Substantive ***:
> 
> §3.2, last sentence: "
> Also note that the total output channel number, C, MUST be set in the 3rd field of the identification header.”
> 
> Is that MUST intended as a new normative requirement? The wording makes it seem more like a statement of fact. (The prefix of “Also note that…” tends to suggest the sentence is an FYI rather than a normative requirement.
> 
> §4: I am a little confused by the MAYs in this section. Are there other alternatives? Is this an example approach? A sentence or two of context would be helpful.
> 
> *** Editorial ***:
> 
> §2: Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174 unless there is a reason to do otherwise. (I note at least one lower case normative keyword (“should”); there may be more.
> 
> §3.1,
> 
> - first paragraph: First sentence is a fragment. Should there be a conjunction between the last two values in the list of allowed numbers of channels? (The pattern repeats in §3.2)
> 
> - figure 1: It would be helpful to define “order” and “degree” (defined in figure 2) prior to using them.
> 
> §5.2, first sentence: Missing article before “Treatment”.
> 
> §7: s/ “need take” / “need to take"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>