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

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 14 June 2018 20:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 3BE42130E70; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:26:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 lmBl89YlIebx; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99EBE130E6E; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.95] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w5EKQG2a049914 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:26:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.95]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AFE0B8E2-2B1C-4981-B473-43E143722CF2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:26:15 -0500
References: <05380CB5-0261-47DC-B578-9BE7C21CAB16@nostrum.com>
To: draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics.all@ietf.org, codec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <05380CB5-0261-47DC-B578-9BE7C21CAB16@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <CFC2AA24-1005-421B-AF3A-15C0291BCE68@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.8.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/codec/myETB_tCFAmXamXBRu7yntrulAw>
Subject: Re: [codec] AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:26:19 -0000

The address for <michael@graczyk.com> 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 <ben@nostrum.com> 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"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>