Hi Mo, On 14/10/16 04:39 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote: > I would like to propose another option. > > 4) Add an informational note in the update draft that the codebase on > opus-codec.org has diverged, and may continue to diverge, from the code in > RFC 6716, without breaking normative bitstream compatibility. > > This option seems sufficient and lightweight.
Well, I think at this point the opus-codec.org encoder is significantly better than the one in RFC6716. It seems weird to say "using the RFC 6716 encoder is NOT RECOMMENDED" without having the IETF itself distribute a better implementation. Cheers, Jean-Marc > Mo (as individual contributor) > > -----Original Message----- > From: codec <codec-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin > <jmva...@jmvalin.ca> > Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:13 PM > To: "codec@ietf.org" <codec@ietf.org> > Subject: [codec] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt > > Hi, > > I just uploaded a new version of the Opus draft. It adds fixes for two > decoder integer wrap-around issues discovered through fuzzing. None of > them is particularly frightening, but they still needed to be fixed. At > this point, I do not expect more fixes to this document -- please let me > know if you think I missed something. > > I'm also realizing just how much the "current" codebase on > opus-codec.org has come to differ from the code in RFC6716. This > includes many many fixes and improvements to the encoder and fixed-point > decoder. Since they are not normative bitstream changes, they are not > included in this update draft. I think it would be nice to update the > IETF "reference implementation" of Opus to reflect the improvements. > That being said, I'm not sure what's the best way to do that. I can > think of several options: > > 1) An (informational?) RFC with updated based64 tarball containing the > newest version > 2) A tarball of the new version uploaded as meeting material like the > original testvectors (where would we link to it?) > 3) Somehow mirroring the opus-coder.org downloads on the IETF website > > There's probably other options too. Any thoughts? > > Cheers, > > Jean-Marc > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt > Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:43:24 -0700 > From: internet-dra...@ietf.org > To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org > CC: codec@ietf.org > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec of the IETF. > > Title : Updates to the Opus Audio Codec > Authors : Jean-Marc Valin > Koen Vos > Filename : draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2016-09-01 > > Abstract: > This document addresses minor issues that were found in the > specification of the Opus audio codec in RFC 6716 [RFC6716]. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update/ > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03 > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > > _______________________________________________ > codec mailing list > codec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec > _______________________________________________ codec mailing list codec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec