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

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

Joel et al: thank you very much for the review and changes. I have balloted no-obj.

Jari

On 15 Feb 2016, at 19:25, Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Yes, draft 13 addresses all my comments (and also addresses issues I engaged them on following the review) and is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
> 
> My thanks to the authors for their work.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 1/15/16 5:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>> 
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>> 
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>> 
>> Document: draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10
>>     Ogg Encapsulation for the Opus Audio Codec
>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>> Review Date:
>> IETF LC End Date: 27-January-2016
>> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>> 
>> Summary:
>>     This document is nearly ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
>>     The reviewer believes the status issues needs to be addressed, and
>> would like the minor issue identified below discussed.
>> 
>> Major issues:
>>     I do not see how we can have a standards track document for using
>> an Informational format.  RFC 3533 is Informational.  At the very least,
>> the last call needed to identify the downref to RFC 3533.  (It is not
>> clear whether the reference to RFC 4732 needs to be normative or could
>> be informative.)
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>>     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?
>> 
>> Yours,
>> Joel Halpern
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art