Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Ralph.

On the minor note, I had not realized those were already relevant 
parameters.  Anyone using this can reasonably be expected to know that, 
so it is not a big deal.  Given that it would only take one sentence, it 
might be nice to add the statement anyway.

Yours,
Joel

On 1/15/16 6:41 PM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On 15/01/16 02:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Minor issues:
>>      While I do not completely understand ogg lacing values, there
>> appears to be an internal inconsistency in the text in section 3:
>> 1) "if the previous page with packet data does not end in a continued
>> packet (i.e., did not end with a lacing value of 255)"
>> 2) "a packet that continues onto a subsequent page (i.e., when the page
>> ends with a lacing value of 255)"
>>      The first quote says that continued packets end with a lacing value
>> of 255, and the second quote says that continued packets end with a
>> lacing value of less than 255.  At the very least, these need to be
>> clarified.
>
> Thanks for taking time to review the draft. You're right that the logic is inverted in the last section. I've corrected the i.e. clause in the last paragraph.
>>      is there some way to indicate that the ogg encoding constraints
>> (e.g. 48kHz granule and 2.5 ms timing) are sufficiently broad to cover
>> all needed cases?
>
> Hmm. RFC 6716 sec 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 give 48 kHz and 2.5 ms as the maximum sample rate and minumum packet duration, respectively. I suppose sec. 4 of the draft assumes these constraints.
>
> It does indicate that 2.5 ms is the minimum packet duration, but we could add a reference, or a statement that 48 kHz is the effective maximum sample rate of the codec if it's cause for concern.
>
>   -r
>