Last Call Review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08
review-ietf-codec-opus-update-08-genart-lc-sparks-2017-08-01-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-codec-opus-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2017-08-09
Requested 2017-07-26
Other Reviews Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Robert Sparks
Review review-ietf-codec-opus-update-08-genart-lc-sparks-2017-08-01
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/dUcfrczXzv6D-l54KKv2lBAQHAY
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready
Last updated 2017-08-01

Review
review-ietf-codec-opus-update-08-genart-lc-sparks-2017-08-01

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

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-08
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2017-08-01
IETF LC End Date: 2017-08-09
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready for publication as a Standards Track RFC

This document is straightforward in the changes it is making to OPUS.

My only note of sadness is that it continues to use a documentation mechanism started by RFC6716 of effectively making a normative reference to the _proceedings_ of previous IETF meetings.
(Note that this document does this twice: once for the patch file, which is a convenience - the information is in the draft, and once for the updated test vectors. This is _not_ a convenience, the information is not in the draft. If, for whatever reason, the proceedings URL could not be retrieved, someone could not verify their implementation with the updated test vectors).

On the one hand, we've set the precedent, and we could agree to just let this go (I'm recommending that to the IESG with this review).
On the other hand, we could make things _slightly_ better (or perhaps just different) by putting the test vectors in the doc as an appendix as a uuencoded compressed tarball.