Re: [payload] status of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-isac

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Yeah, I found it hard to address the comments, because they either required
me to dig into the mechanics of the compression mechanism or to remove
information so that the document became less informative - the most
tortuous question was "how may bits does the value have for an integer that
can have only the values 48 and 96", if I remember rightly - with
arithmetic coding, I don't think the question even makes sense (it's likely
to be 1 bit + some state that influences how you encode the next bit, so
it's not even an integer number of bits - but verifying that this is
actually a true statement would require me to dive into the C++
implementation, since no independent documentation exists).

With the declining importance of iSAC, I kind of forgot about it. But it
would be nice to complete.

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Paul E. Jones <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Harald,
>
> Want to weigh in here?  It's been a very long time since we talked about
> this, and I think the importance (given Opus) has been increasingly
> declining.
>
> Still, it might be nice to publish for completeness.
>
> Paul
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Roni Even" <[e-mail]>
> To: "'Paul E. Jones'" <[e-mail]>; "'Harald Alvestrand'" <
> [e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: "Ali C. Begen" <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; "Ben
> Campbell" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 10/17/2016 4:37:21 AM
> Subject: status of draft-ietf-avt-rtp-isac
>
> Hi ,
>
> Looking back I noticed that draft-ietf-avt-isac was sent to publication
> and there were comments from the previous AD, Richard Barnes, at the time.
>
> We still have the milestone in the payload WG.
>
> So this is a question to the editors if they would like to get back and
> finish this work, and if yes it will be good to submit as a payload and not
> avt document
>
> Thank
>
> Roni Even
>
>