RTP Payload Format for Vorbis Encoded Audio
RFC 5215

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Cullen Jennings) Yes

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 12.1., paragraph 10:
>    [10]  "Ogg Vorbis I specification:  Codec setup and packet decode.
>          Available from the Xiph website, http://www.xiph.org".

 DOWNREF? Not sure if Xiph qualifies as an SDO.

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-11-29)
No email
send info
The -08 version addresses my discuss issues.

The new text states "The parameter MAY be included multiple time,
followed by the configuration or configuration-uri parameter
associated."

I believe that should be "times" instead of "time".  It is also very
unusual for the same MIME parameter attribute name to appear multiple
times.  However, I could find nothing in the MIME specification that
forbids doing so.  But be aware this could be a source of
interoperability problems (if an implementation ignores all but the
first attribute with a given name, for example).

A discussion of the security impact of the compression
algorithm as recommended by by RFC 4288 section 4.6 would improve
the document.

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

Comment (2007-11-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The security considerations section is reasonable for a codec specification, but
could be enhanced by providing examples of secure protocols that fetch the
configuration payloads.   Otherwise, readers are guessing what the author had
in mind.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-31 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
References [10] and [12] are just pointers to the xiph.org Web site, and leave to the reader the challenge of searching for the respective documents. I suggest that the authors do this job instead and provide the exact reference - for example the Vorbis I specification is available at http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/Vorbis_I_spec.html.

(David Ward) (was Discuss) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-30)
No email
send info
There seem to be some inconsistencies what the Vorbis data units are called. In Section 1, the data is called "Vorbis Packets" and in section 2 they are called Vorbis payload (data). The data varies depending on context. In the end of section 2.2 both payload and packet are used to refer to vorbis data. This alternation between packets and payloads continue in the following sections. Please address for clarity.

Section 2.2 also contains the usage of "RTP packet" or "packet" where in both cases "RTP Payload" would be more correct and clear.