Definition of the Opus Audio Codec
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, codec mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, codec chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Definition of the Opus Audio Codec' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-codec-opus-16.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Definition of the Opus Audio Codec' (draft-ietf-codec-opus-16.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Robert Sparks and Gonzalo Camarillo. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus/
Working Group Summary The chairs believe there is good consensus behind the document, particularly around the technology. There has not been any significant disagreement on any of the technical aspects of the codec. However, the working group has left the detailed specification work to the small author team. There are several vocal participants who continue to express dissatisfaction over the testing and codec validation associated with the work. The WG chairs do not believe that there was consensus to make these changes. This document has been the subject of a number of IPR declarations. See: Microsoft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1670/ Skype: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1602/ Broadcom: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1526/ Xiph: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1524/ Qualcomm: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1520/ Huawei: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1712/ Huawei: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1741/ The WG has had an opportunity to review these disclosures in Last Call and has opted to proceed with document publication. Document Quality There is an existing implementation - the reference implementation which is included in the appendix of the document and has been maintained by the authors of the specification. One of the authors developed several independent decoder implementations in order to help validate the specification. There are no known alternative encoder implementations. There are no significant reviewers worth noting beyond the author team. The codec has gone through a great degree of testing that demonstrates its quality. Test results can be found at: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-results/. Personnel Shepherd: Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. <firstname.lastname@example.org> Responsible AD: Robert Sparks <email@example.com> RFC Editor Note: Please replace the instances of rfcXXXX in this document with rfc number assigned for this draft. Please work with the draft editors to replace rfcXXXX as it appears in the files in the appendix with the rfc number assigned for this draft. Please work with the draft editors to ensure that the following is added (with XXXX replaced appropriately) to the README file in the appendix: "These files were extracted from RFCXXXX. Please see that RFC for additional information."