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

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 wrote: > Yes, draft 13 addresses all my comments (and also addresses issues I engaged > them on following the review) and is ready for

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

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

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

On 18 Jan 2016, at 5:35, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Hm. I was confused. This document is about embedding OPUS (a standards-track document) inside of OGG (an informational); I was thinking of the precedent of embeedding video formats (informational at best) inside RTP (a standards-track), with

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

Hm. I was confused. This document is about embedding OPUS (a standards-track document) inside of OGG (an informational); I was thinking of the precedent of embeedding video formats (informational at best) inside RTP (a standards-track), with the document specifying the embedding being

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

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 08:15:33PM +0100, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > Den 15. jan. 2016 23:26, skrev Joel M. Halpern: > > 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.

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

Den 15. jan. 2016 23:26, skrev Joel M. Halpern: > 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

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

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

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

That would work very well. Thanks Tim. Yours, Joel On 1/15/16 6:52 PM, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote: Joel M. Halpern wrote: On the minor note, I had not realized those were already relevant parameters. Anyone using this can reasonably be expected to know that, so it is not a big deal. Given

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

I somehow missed that line (I did go look at the announcement.) Sorry. In this case, it seems a bit more extreme than the usual downref. given that it is standardizing the use of this format, it seems to be essentially standardizing the document defining the format. Is the intent of the

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

Joel M. Halpern wrote: On the minor note, I had not realized those were already relevant parameters. Anyone using this can reasonably be expected to know that, so it is not a big deal. Given that it would only take one sentence, it might be nice to add the statement anyway. We can certainly

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

On 15/01/16 02:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > 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

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

The last call announcement included the following text: > Please note that the document makes normative references to RFCs 3533 and > 4732, which are informational. > Thanks! Ben. Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 15, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > At the

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

Thanks Ralph. On the minor note, I had not realized those were already relevant parameters. Anyone using this can reasonably be expected to know that, so it is not a big deal. Given that it would only take one sentence, it might be nice to add the statement anyway. Yours, Joel On 1/15/16