Last Call Review of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-10
review-ietf-codec-oggopus-10-genart-lc-halpern-2016-01-15-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-01-27
Requested 2016-01-14
Authors Timothy Terriberry, Ron Lee, Ralph Giles
Draft last updated 2016-01-15
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -10 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -13 by Joel Halpern (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -10 by Scott Bradner (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Joel Halpern
State Completed
Review review-ietf-codec-oggopus-10-genart-lc-halpern-2016-01-15
Reviewed rev. 10 (document currently at 14)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2016-01-15

Review
review-ietf-codec-oggopus-10-genart-lc-halpern-2016-01-15

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