Skip to main content

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 revision 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
Authors Jean-Marc Valin , Koen Vos
I-D last updated 2017-08-01
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Steve Hanna (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-codec-opus-update by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2017-08-01
review-ietf-codec-opus-update-08-genart-lc-sparks-2017-08-01-00
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.