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

Ralph Giles <> Fri, 15 January 2016 23:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C451B33CF for <>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OVJw21nPucuD for <>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FE1A1B33D1 for <>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id yy13so309132711pab.3 for <>; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=67+VHJdU/eMzPzp7J1MZPCuyuPPAXr7VeVknZnrPG0Q=; b=mqTIFg9ljgjhj8NN0Y0a4kqY2mDaYBMiSuf81CRyzvtSH9exjeVgv7wr41PXo8ihAn tIZD/4LxJP6xD2HhQl8EnsTUCCZ+LLaT9c6IEH7McMb2+LQ5nvU/OvEGpDdEmUCHbtUP URo3C91aflawgvFfz/jBvKw3l6E0zQ1wpePlKLEJpC7qfBg16JpOvFTyj5CzwBL1Nq27 U5/dG6TdyQi6zN2kgU73IHB0OLylBuD42+wSgnv8CcY5V6M1i+UGB+eLooTUmgFHn3VR ArZ9HnEBFQL9TENVP+dO9DP6QFkNQcHdOHn+cValdTLHe62BKRDo47q10N17BqjabDK5 70hA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=67+VHJdU/eMzPzp7J1MZPCuyuPPAXr7VeVknZnrPG0Q=; b=Eg85VmBLboaUm0WRJzyLHvk4tDHsoQUVy6xJ4rT4q3BlCcjXCtOnHQUtX7RNc4l9Cs Y9AFpS3gQzNsu5VNjH7nkZEW/Ybpx2/jp5uowS+yLkmF61iP5zmA7huuXzUqqeqwepWo oG29P4d6HTA5lhzVcZ6V2uvlLH1Yqk2vdkI3olgJmH0X8aEGOxK+/8N998DSAb5ObItu 8NUKSNqetn+RE+H47nv7qUGSNOFtQSYfOJDt3nmhX1FErO39DmV7c4Xl2jME8d0Oe5Vi c1ddmWFP1Vx2ZGs/1unpp8JsTqizY0XZ4ZQzc936VzSIjwbwAtHw2kmXRvfiQVkkBlFv egbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlvizBTuSyb4u/nDUcqubEyBx4nDqnu37pWF5EuiSOGRcGHP3/dhzHnOI9Uh9dHoFH+OzbPCzL7EDvgsuGXjWe/K84ZEg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id zd5mr18912420pac.9.1452901293682; Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([2607:ffb0:3001:224:1e6f:65ff:fec8:6a3f]) by with ESMTPSA id mj1sm17765638pab.34.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Ralph Giles <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:41:31 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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 23:41:36 -0000

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.