Skip to main content

RTP Payload Format for the Opus Speech and Audio Codec
RFC 7587

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
11 (System) Notify list changed from draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.ad@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.shepherd@ietf.org, abegen@cisco.com to (None)
2015-06-30
11 (System) RFC published
2015-06-30
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48
2015-06-15
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR
2015-06-01
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2015-04-22
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2015-04-21
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors
2015-04-21
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2015-04-21
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2015-04-21
11 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2015-04-21
11 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2015-04-20
11 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2015-04-20
11 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup
2015-04-20
11 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2015-04-20
11 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2015-04-20
11 Cindy Morgan Ballot writeup was changed
2015-04-20
11 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2015-04-20
11 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thank you for adjusting the text in the security considerations section to encourage the use of strong security mechanisms.
2015-04-20
11 Kathleen Moriarty Ballot comment text updated for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-04-20
11 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot comment]
Thank you for adjusting the text int he security considerations section to encourage the use of strong security mechanisms.
2015-04-20
11 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-04-19
11 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2015-04-14
11 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-11.txt
2015-04-13
10 Christer Holmberg Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2015-04-10
10 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-10.txt
2015-04-10
09 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2015-04-10
09 Jean-Marc Valin IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed
2015-04-10
09 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-09.txt
2015-04-09
08 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation
2015-04-09
08 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2015-04-09
08 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2015-04-08
08 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2015-04-08
08 Alia Atlas [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas
2015-04-08
08 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2015-04-08
08 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2015-04-08
08 Brian Haberman [Ballot comment]
I agree with Barry that Section 3 should be explicitly called out as an applicability statement.
2015-04-08
08 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2015-04-07
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2015-04-07
08 Barry Leiba
[Ballot comment]
Very clear document; well written.

The Abstract and Introduction both understate what this document is.  It doesn't just define the payload format and …
[Ballot comment]
Very clear document; well written.

The Abstract and Introduction both understate what this document is.  It doesn't just define the payload format and registrations, but also provides what I would consider an Applicability Statement in Section 3: normative, Standards Track advice about how to use the Opus codec, complete with MUST and SHOULD and SHOULD NOT.  That's fine, but both the Abstract and Introduction should say that.

-- Section 4.1 --

  Opus supports 5 different audio bandwidths, which can be adjusted
  during a call.

Wouldn't "during a stream", or "during active streaming", or perhaps "during an RTP session", or some such be better than referring to "a call"?

-- Section 5 --

  It is RECOMMENDED that senders of Opus encoded data apply congestion
  control.

Does this SHOULD come with any reference to how to do congestion control?  The previous paragraph has some vague statements about doing congestion control, but is there anything more concrete that I could refer to if I were implementing this?

-- Section 6.1 --
I see that the document shepherd asked for a media-types review in December, and that there were no comments.  Thanks for making sure that got done, Ali.
2015-04-07
08 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2015-04-07
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot discuss]

I have one thing I'd like to discuss briefly...

cbr=0 (aka vbr) as a default is a security concern since
you're making the …
[Ballot discuss]

I have one thing I'd like to discuss briefly...

cbr=0 (aka vbr) as a default is a security concern since
you're making the less secure option the default. Did the WG
consider that issue when deciding to pick this default?
Given current deployments would it still actually be
feasible to switch the default to cbr? Or would it be
possible to say that cbr is the default for encrypted
traffic but vbr for cleartext?  (Note: I don't plan on
having a big fight about this if it's really too late and
it'd not be possible to change what implementations do for
the default. But even in that case, we might be able to
usefully add some more/better guidance.)
2015-04-07
08 Stephen Farrell
[Ballot comment]

- 3.1.2: s/_might_ occur/occurs/ the information leak does
occur unquestionably, the only uncertainty is whether or not
someone cares about that, whereas the …
[Ballot comment]

- 3.1.2: s/_might_ occur/occurs/ the information leak does
occur unquestionably, the only uncertainty is whether or not
someone cares about that, whereas the current text implies
that the leak might not be real. As written, the text is
misleading, though not sufficiently to make this a DISCUSS.
(I am assuming there is no result that shows that encrypted
OPUS traffic is somehow not leaking information in the way
other codecs do.)

- 6.1, maxptime and ptime: I read this as saying that 3, 6,
9 etc are all valid values, but that e.g. 43 is not. Is that
correct? In other words can I mix frames that contain
different durations of audio into one RTP packet? (You may
have told me earlier, but I've forgotten already, sorry:-)
2015-04-07
08 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2015-04-06
08 Ben Campbell Notification list changed to draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.ad@ietf.org, payload-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus.shepherd@ietf.org, abegen@cisco.com, payload@ietf.org from "Ali C. Begen" <abegen@cisco.com>
2015-04-06
08 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
Meta-comment - it looks like the notification field is pointing only to Ali. If that's intentional, rock on, but I've had some accidentally-minimal …
[Ballot comment]
Meta-comment - it looks like the notification field is pointing only to Ali. If that's intentional, rock on, but I've had some accidentally-minimal notification lists on drafts recently, and wanted to mention that.

This draft seemed very clear to me, one not skilled in the art. Thank you for that.

I have a few comments. If you have questions, please ask, but they're non-blocking (so do the right thing).

In this text:

3.  Opus Codec

  Further, Opus allows transmitting stereo signals.
 
I wasn't sure what this was telling me until I got to section 3.4, and saw this text: "signaled in-band in the Opus payload". Perhaps adding that phrase in Section 3 would be helpful?

In this text:

3.1.2.  Variable versus Constant Bitrate

  One
  reason for choosing CBR is the potential information leak that
  _might_ occur when encrypting the compressed stream.  See [RFC6562]
  for guidelines on when VBR is appropriate for encrypted audio
  communications.
 
I THINK I know what "potential information leak" means in this case, but I'm guessing. I learned a lot from the [RFC6562] reference. Is it possible to provide a short clue here? Would it be correct to say something like "One reason for choosing CBR is that some codecs have been observed to provide predictable VBR patterns for highly structured dialogs where only a few phrases are expected, and potentially leaking information without requiring an eavesdropper to decrypt the payload"?

Also in 3.1.2:

  The bitrate can be adjusted at any point in time.  To avoid
  congestion, the average bitrate SHOULD NOT exceed the available
  network bandwidth. 
 
I'm kind of wondering how you intend for the sender to know what the "available network bandwidth" is. I notice a reference in Section 3.3 to

  (2) an externally-provided estimate of the
  channel's capacity;
 
Is "the available network bandwidth" this externally provided estimate? What should a sender be looking at, to fulfill this SHOULD NOT?

Of course, I'm wondering why this is SHOULD NOT, instead of MUST NOT. Is this recognizing that available network bandwidth can change instantaneously (so a careful sender might still find itself sending too fast for a short period of time), or is there something else going on?

As long as I'm mentioning section 3.3, if the "externally-provided estimate" had some reference, that would be helpful (unless, of course, this is obvious to those skilled in the art). The term only appears twice in 3.3, with no pointers.

In this text:

5.  Congestion Control

  It is RECOMMENDED that senders of Opus encoded data apply congestion
  control.
 
Is there a particular mechanism you're thinking of here? If you could make that clearer, even just providing a reference, that would be helpful for me as a reader.

In other news, I support Kathleen's Discuss on SHOULD SRTP, and if it becomes a SHOULD and not a MUST, I'd suggest adding a sentence or two explaining why not using SRTP is the right thing to do.
2015-04-06
08 Spencer Dawkins Ballot comment text updated for Spencer Dawkins
2015-04-06
08 Spencer Dawkins
[Ballot comment]
In this text:

3.  Opus Codec

  Further, Opus allows transmitting stereo signals.
 
I wasn't sure what this was telling me until …
[Ballot comment]
In this text:

3.  Opus Codec

  Further, Opus allows transmitting stereo signals.
 
I wasn't sure what this was telling me until I got to section 3.4, and saw this text: "signaled in-band in the Opus payload". Perhaps adding that phrase in Section 3 would be helpful?

In this text:

3.1.2.  Variable versus Constant Bitrate

  One
  reason for choosing CBR is the potential information leak that
  _might_ occur when encrypting the compressed stream.  See [RFC6562]
  for guidelines on when VBR is appropriate for encrypted audio
  communications.
 
I THINK I know what "potential information leak" means in this case, but I'm guessing. I learned a lot from the [RFC6562] reference. Is it possible to provide a short clue here? Would it be correct to say something like "One reason for choosing CBR is that some codecs have been observed to provide predictable VBR patterns for highly structured dialogs where only a few phrases are expected, and potentially leaking information without requiring an eavesdropper to decrypt the payload"?

Also in 3.1.2:

  The bitrate can be adjusted at any point in time.  To avoid
  congestion, the average bitrate SHOULD NOT exceed the available
  network bandwidth. 
 
I'm kind of wondering how you intend for the sender to know what the "available network bandwidth" is. I notice a reference in Section 3.3 to

  (2) an externally-provided estimate of the
  channel's capacity;
 
Is "the available network bandwidth" this externally provided estimate? What should a sender be looking at, to fulfill this SHOULD NOT?

Of course, I'm wondering why this is SHOULD NOT, instead of MUST NOT. Is this recognizing that available network bandwidth can change instantaneously (so a careful sender might still find itself sending too fast for a short period of time), or is there something else going on?

As long as I'm mentioning section 3.3, if the "externally-provided estimate" had some reference, that would be helpful (unless, of course, this is obvious to those skilled in the art). The term only appears twice in 3.3, with no pointers.

In this text:

5.  Congestion Control

  It is RECOMMENDED that senders of Opus encoded data apply congestion
  control.
 
Is there a particular mechanism you're thinking of here? If you could make that clearer, even just providing a reference, that would be helpful for me as a reader.

In other news, I support Kathleen's Discuss on SHOULD SRTP, and if it becomes a SHOULD and not a MUST, I'd suggest adding a sentence or two explaining why not using SRTP is the right thing to do.
2015-04-06
08 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2015-04-06
08 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2015-04-06
08 Ben Campbell Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2015-04-06
08 Kathleen Moriarty
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  This is a very simple discuss that we should be able to clear quickly.

In the …
[Ballot discuss]
Thanks for your work on this draft.  This is a very simple discuss that we should be able to clear quickly.

In the security considerations section, there is a MAY that I think should be a SHOULD to encourage the use of session encryption.

OLD:
  Any suitable
  external mechanisms, such as SRTP [RFC3711], MAY be used.
NEW:
  Any suitable
  external mechanisms, such as SRTP [RFC3711], SHOULD be used.

It came up in the SecDir review, but maybe wasn't seen by the draft editors.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05453.html

Thank you!
2015-04-06
08 Kathleen Moriarty [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty
2015-04-02
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-04-02
08 Jean Mahoney Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
Section 7.1 has some normative language that seems more about the meaning of parameters than about SDP Offer/Answer considerations. That might be more …
[Ballot comment]
Section 7.1 has some normative language that seems more about the meaning of parameters than about SDP Offer/Answer considerations. That might be more appropriate in the parameter definitions.

It might be worth having the security considerations mention the VBR security discussion in section 3.1.2.

Section 3.1.3, last sentence:

s / restraints / constraints
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell Ballot comment text updated for Ben Campbell
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-04-09
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell Ballot has been issued
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell Created "Approve" ballot
2015-04-01
08 Ben Campbell Ballot writeup was changed
2015-03-30
08 Ben Campbell Ballot approval text was generated
2015-03-25
08 Cindy Morgan Shepherding AD changed to Ben Campbell
2015-03-02
08 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Derek Atkins.
2015-02-17
08 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call
2015-02-16
08 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2015-02-16
08 Pearl Liang
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-07.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon …
IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-07.  Authors should review the comments and/or questions below.  Please report any inaccuracies and respond to any questions as soon as possible.

We received the following comments/questions from the IANA's reviewer:

Upon approval of this document, IANA understands that there is a single action which must be completed.

In the Audio Media Type subregistry of the Media Types registry located at:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/

a new audio media type is to be registered as follows:

Name: opus
Template: audio/opus [ As-Provided-in-Document ]
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

IANA understands that this is the only action required to be completed upon approval of this document.

Note:  The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. 

Please note that IANA cannot reserve specific values.  However, early allocation is available for some types of registrations. For more information, please see RFC 7120.
2015-02-11
08 Christer Holmberg Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Christer Holmberg.
2015-02-10
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jason Weil
2015-02-10
08 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jason Weil
2015-02-06
08 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-08.txt
2015-02-05
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-02-05
07 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Christer Holmberg
2015-02-05
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2015-02-05
07 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Derek Atkins
2015-02-03
07 Cindy Morgan IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2015-02-03
07 Cindy Morgan
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for Opus …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (RTP Payload Format for Opus Speech and Audio Codec) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Audio/Video Transport Payloads
WG (payload) to consider the following document:
- 'RTP Payload Format for Opus Speech and Audio Codec'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-02-17. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload
  format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and audio data
  necessary to integrate the codec in the most compatible way.
  Further, it describes media type registrations for the RTP payload
  format.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


2015-02-03
07 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes Last call was requested
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes Ballot approval text was generated
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes Last call announcement was generated
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes Last call announcement was generated
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes Ballot writeup was changed
2015-02-03
07 Richard Barnes Ballot writeup was generated
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,

Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  …
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,

Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document will be a standards track RFC, it specifies an RTP payload format for the OPUS (audio and speech) codec.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document defines the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) payload format for packetization of Opus encoded speech and audio data necessary to integrate the codec in the most compatible way.

Working Group Summary

The document was discussed on the mailing list. The open issues were addressed and there were no controversies.

Document Quality

There are several existing implementations (E.g., Chrome, Firefox, libav/FFmpeg, gstreamer, Bria, Freeswitch, Jitsi, Meetecho, Linphone, PJSIP, and VLC). The request for a media type review was posted on Dec. 31st , 2014.

Personnel

Ali C. Begen is the document shepherd and Richard Barnes is the responsible AD.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

The document shepherd reviewed the document and found it ready for publication.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed? 

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

No concerns.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

Yes, they confirmed that they did not have any IPR.

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

No IPR disclosure has been submitted.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

The WG understands the document and agrees with it.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

No nits.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

There was only a media type review.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

No.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

IANA related sections are inline with the rest of the document.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

No new registries are created.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

No need.
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen Responsible AD changed to Richard Barnes
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen Changed document writeup
2015-01-13
07 Ali Begen IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call
2015-01-13
07 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-07.txt
2015-01-05
06 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-06.txt
2014-12-08
05 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-05.txt
2014-11-13
04 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-04.txt
2014-11-13
03 Ali Begen IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2014-11-13
03 Ali Begen Notification list changed to "Ali C. Begen" <abegen@cisco.com>
2014-11-13
03 Ali Begen Document shepherd changed to Ali C. Begen
2014-07-30
03 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-03.txt
2014-06-30
02 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-02.txt
2013-08-02
01 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-01.txt
2013-01-10
00 Jean-Marc Valin New version available: draft-ietf-payload-rtp-opus-00.txt