Telechat Review of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-13

Request Review of draft-ietf-codec-oggopus
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 14)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-02-16
Requested 2016-02-15
Authors Timothy Terriberry, Ron Lee, Ralph Giles
Draft last updated 2016-05-27
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-13-genart-telechat-halpern-2016-05-27
Reviewed rev. 13 (document currently at 14)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2016-05-27


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.


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


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

     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

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?

Joel Halpern

Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art at