Re: [codec] draft-ietf-codec-oggopus and "album" gain

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <> Wed, 27 August 2014 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1141A011B for <>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_FAIL=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIfDqQ_u1pD3 for <>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C7781A0110 for <>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B7C5F240C for <>; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:23:30 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20140813222201.54fe7910@crunchbang> <> <20140816040140.GA31682@hex.shelbyville.oz> <> <20140827153043.2ff5e031@crunchbang>
In-Reply-To: <20140827153043.2ff5e031@crunchbang>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [codec] draft-ietf-codec-oggopus and "album" gain
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:23:33 -0000

Ian Nartowicz wrote:
> This seems like a step backwards to me.  That MUST is a requirement
> that wasn't present before.  An earlier statement is "Virtually all players
> and media frameworks should apply it by default.", which I think is the
> appropriate guidance.

I agree with Ian. The point was to clean up usage of an un-capitalized 
RFC 2119 keyword that we all agree was not meant to be normative. We 
shouldn't be adding NEW normative requirements in its place.

We have not to this point had any problem getting players to apply the 
output gain by default with the current spec language (and Greg 
Maxwell's test files that tell people their player is broken if they 
don't implement this). We've had to cajole a few, but once we have, I 
believe it has been fixed in every case.

-With my individual hat on