Re: [codec] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-terriberry-oggopus-00.txt

["Timothy B. Terriberry" <[e-mail]>]

Ron wrote:
> might from a first linear reading of the document.  It probably
> could usefully be split into some subsections - with the pre-skip
> definition in section 5 then providing a back reference to 4.1
> about how it fits together with granule position etc.

Yes, this is a pretty good idea. Feel free to offer some suggestions for 
section titles, etc.

> Section 6 I suspect should be folded back into appropriate places
> in the rest of the document and that section dropped entirely.
> That was kind of a placeholder for various issues that came up in
> discussion, but didn't otherwise already have a place in the wiki
> where it obviously fit at the time.

The first paragraph probably belongs in Section 4 somewhere, but I 
worried that introducing it too early would confuse the issue with 
pre-skip, when the concepts are totally independent. I should probably 
also add a sentence about what to do if the seek point is before the 
first 80 ms.

The rest (discussing packet size limitations) arguably belongs in 
Section 3, but it really is a complete aside. Having it off the critical 
path for "things you need to understand to implement this specification" 
is an advantage, I think.

I may move the first paragraph out and re-title Section 6 to reflect the 
fact that it just discusses packet size limitations.

> The defined values for Channel Mapping Family might benefit from
> being moved to that field's description in 5.1 rather than being
> left until the latter part of 5.1.1 - or at least moved to the
> top of 5.1.1 where it flows directly on from that, since we refer
> to the special cases for family 0 in the descriptions of the
> mapping table fields, without having introduced family 0 except
> by way of saying "it's special".

I think I originally pushed it back because I wanted a clear definition 
of "decoded channels" vs. "output channels" in place before I tried to 
describe the restrictions associated with each mapping family. Upon 
re-reading, I agree this order creates some other problems, though. 
However, I do think it's beneficial to keep it in its own subsection.