Requirements for an Internet Audio Codec
RFC 6366

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Peter Saint-Andre) Yes

Comment (2011-07-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
It would be good to provide informational references for the following technologies mentioned in Section 4: SIP [RFC3261], SDP [RFC4566], XMPP [RFC6120], and Jingle [XEP-0167].

Please also provide a reference to RFC 3951 for iLBC, a reference to the G.722.1 specification, and a URL for the Speex project.

Several acronyms are not expanded (e.g., FFT, DTX).

(Robert Sparks) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-05 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Note section 3.1 is inconsistent with section 2 which defined narrowband as 8 kHz not 8-16 kbps; this pattern of error is repeated many times throughout the rest of the document.  The document should be internally consistent when using this terminology.  It seems to use the terminology in reference to bit rates more often than to sampling rates, so maybe the definition just needs to be updated?

In section 5.2 and 5.3, how is quality / betterness measured specifically?  Do you mean via an actual MOS test, formally carried out, or just more subjectively?

A couple of the references section entries (carrot08 and wright09) aren't sufficient to actually locate the works in a library and need to be expanded.  The full citation information can be found pretty easily via google.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I have reviewed this document for its impact on routing and have no issues.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-08-09)
No email
send info
This version fixes my discuss and also took on board the comments,
thanks,
S

(David Harrington) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-14)
No email
send info
The Gen-ART Review by Wassim Haddad on 13-Jul-2011 includes one
  editorial comment.  Wassim said:

  IMHO, if no other security-related comments have to be added (which
  seems to be the case), then section 4.1 should find its way to the 
  security considerations section instead of the latter referring to it.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2011-07-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The title of the document does not reflect the content with any degree of accuracy. It also may be possible that other codec work will be done in the future in the IETF based on different requirements. I suggest to change the title to something on the lines of 'Internet Audio Codec Requirements for Interractive Applications'. 

(Sean Turner) No Objection