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

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Fri, 15 January 2016 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084241B33E7; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:48:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.702
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.702 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GTN_iEoSJ7Ab; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F7DE1B33DC; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:48:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FB51C5BCB; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:48:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1452901726; bh=MuuQMVELSnnOKGW5PtBiBW4NX2fBsgJKcasfXWQb1WE=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=LhzJQabTIpVS/JVI9nTrpS/mfeYf9S2SNQwwAIcHw0bszk7DQYb1jo96W/ZhRcla7 y7X7T/2B/XxDZzRPhv8y6DvohN23I8wI5ccJvaEy88KnH++9NpahDzFx8clakKEUoG 7bdSGtb/Jzo+Xo3/S1bPJ1BXj2a6eZfua0uwxtA4=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED5261C0D95; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:48:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Ralph Giles <>
References: <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 18:47:50 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: General Area Review Team <>,, IETF discussion list <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 23:48:48 -0000

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.


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