Hi, This is my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-06. Overall the draft is in good shape. I just have a couple of minor comments/questions, and a few editorial comments.
Thanks! Ben. ———————————————— *** Substantive ***: §3.2, last sentence: " Also note that the total output channel number, C, MUST be set in the 3rd field of the identification header.” Is that MUST intended as a new normative requirement? The wording makes it seem more like a statement of fact. (The prefix of “Also note that…” tends to suggest the sentence is an FYI rather than a normative requirement. §4: I am a little confused by the MAYs in this section. Are there other alternatives? Is this an example approach? A sentence or two of context would be helpful. *** Editorial ***: §2: Please use the boilerplate from RFC 8174 unless there is a reason to do otherwise. (I note at least one lower case normative keyword (“should”); there may be more. §3.1, - first paragraph: First sentence is a fragment. Should there be a conjunction between the last two values in the list of allowed numbers of channels? (The pattern repeats in §3.2) - figure 1: It would be helpful to define “order” and “degree” (defined in figure 2) prior to using them. §5.2, first sentence: Missing article before “Treatment”. §7: s/ “need take” / “need to take"
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
