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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
