Re: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt (completed)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 14 May 2012 19:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F099D21F8899 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.475
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iIqdqNGqWOdN for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:24:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA0B21F887D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4EJNrNE010641; Mon, 14 May 2012 12:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120514114036.0952ae18@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:13:20 -0700
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@folly.org.uk>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.txt (completed)
In-Reply-To: <1337007973.23527.1614.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk>
References: <1337007973.23527.1614.camel@mightyatom.folly.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: IETF discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 19:24:07 -0000

Hi Elwyn,
At 08:06 14-05-2012, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on

[snip]

>Summary:
>Before offering some views on the document, let me say that this piece
>of work seems to be a tour de force on behalf of its developers.  It is
>certainly one of the (if not the) most technically complex pieces of
>work that has been presented to the IETF, and is far more mathematically
>complex and rigorous than our usual run of standards.  It is also

Let me say that this is one of the best Gen-ART reviews I have 
read.  It is not easy to review draft-ietf-codec-opus-12.  I agree 
that it is the most technically complex piece of work within all IETF 
areas.  The normative choice made by the WG is highly unusual.  The 
alternative would be much more work; it might even be an unworkable option.

Regards,
-sm