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

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

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