Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard

Ron <> Tue, 01 May 2012 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753D621F86D4; Tue, 1 May 2012 01:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.423
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UbWFe26rwips; Tue, 1 May 2012 01:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:6]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9083421F86D3; Tue, 1 May 2012 01:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgsFAByhn095LXH5/2dsb2JhbABErwJlgwCBCIIJAQEFOhwjEAsYIwsUGA0kJ4d4ui+QImMEiGKFL4dsAZBCgng
Received: from (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 01 May 2012 18:11:10 +0930
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8BC4F8F3; Tue, 1 May 2012 18:11:08 +0930 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EjQfgvkuUomE; Tue, 1 May 2012 18:11:07 +0930 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7DA934F8FE; Tue, 1 May 2012 18:11:07 +0930 (CST)
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 18:11:07 +0930
From: Ron <>
To: SM <>
Message-ID: <20120501084107.GB18009@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [codec] Last Call: <draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt> (Definition of the Opus Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 08:41:13 -0000

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:28:59PM -0700, SM wrote:
> At 18:40 30-04-2012, Ron wrote:
> >If this clause becomes a blocker, then we should simply remove it, but in that
> >case it would be good to have clear reasons why it became a blocker, since the
> >things you say you fear here, I see as already being prohibited anyway.
> The text in Section 10 is ambiguous.
> Given all the efforts that went into RFC 6569, it's odd to see the
> text being discussed during the Last Call instead of the WGLC.

Nobody raised any questions about it to discuss until Robert's AD review.
And since it's essentially the same text as had been included in previously
published RFCs, that didn't seem particularly surprising either.

Whatever resolution we arrive at over this, it doesn't effect the substantive
content of the proposed standard. And the question in question does seem like
something that's out of scope for the CODEC WG to answer in general anyway,
beyond giving the rationale for adding it in this case.

I'm happy to defer to whatever the broader community thinks will work best
on this one.