(as individual)
On 24 Oct 2016, at 14:28, Jean-Marc Valin wrote:
Hi Mo,
On 14/10/16 04:39 PM, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) wrote:
I would like to propose another option.
4) Add an informational note in the update draft that the codebase on
opus-codec.org has diverged, and may continue to diverge, from the
code in
RFC 6716, without breaking normative bitstream compatibility.
This option seems sufficient and lightweight.
Well, I think at this point the opus-codec.org encoder is
significantly
better than the one in RFC6716. It seems weird to say "using the RFC
6716 encoder is NOT RECOMMENDED" without having the IETF itself
distribute a better implementation.
The issue is, the IETF is not normally in the business of specifying
implementations. RFC6716 is a bit weird, because the code specifies the
bitstream. But IMO, the code is only normative in that sense; that is,
there is no normative requirement to use that code as long as you
generate the same bitstream.
Ben.
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
Mo (as individual contributor)
-----Original Message-----
From: codec <[email protected]> on behalf of Jean-Marc Valin
<[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 4:13 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [codec] Fwd: I-D Action:
draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt
Hi,
I just uploaded a new version of the Opus draft. It adds fixes for
two
decoder integer wrap-around issues discovered through fuzzing. None
of
them is particularly frightening, but they still needed to be fixed.
At
this point, I do not expect more fixes to this document -- please let
me
know if you think I missed something.
I'm also realizing just how much the "current" codebase on
opus-codec.org has come to differ from the code in RFC6716. This
includes many many fixes and improvements to the encoder and
fixed-point
decoder. Since they are not normative bitstream changes, they are not
included in this update draft. I think it would be nice to update the
IETF "reference implementation" of Opus to reflect the improvements.
That being said, I'm not sure what's the best way to do that. I can
think of several options:
1) An (informational?) RFC with updated based64 tarball containing
the
newest version
2) A tarball of the new version uploaded as meeting material like the
original testvectors (where would we link to it?)
3) Somehow mirroring the opus-coder.org downloads on the IETF website
There's probably other options too. Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Jean-Marc
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [codec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:43:24 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Internet Wideband Audio Codec of the
IETF.
Title : Updates to the Opus Audio Codec
Authors : Jean-Marc Valin
Koen Vos
Filename : draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03.txt
Pages : 9
Date : 2016-09-01
Abstract:
This document addresses minor issues that were found in the
specification of the Opus audio codec in RFC 6716 [RFC6716].
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-codec-opus-update-03
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
_______________________________________________
codec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
