Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-codec-ambisonics/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I see that Section 5.2 attempts to Update RFC 7845 to allow for the larger channel mapping information used by family 3, but I'm still a little unclear about what behavior I should expect from a pure RFC 7845 implementation that receives a family 3 stream. The actual mapping table would be "too long", but would the implementation detect that, or just note that it's an unrecognized family and generate silence? Section 1 I think we want to say "by adding itesm with values 2 and 3" to the registry, since we add two entries and not a single superposed entry. Section 3.1 While I can deduce this from the list of allowed numbers of channels, noting that both ends of the range (0 and 14) are allowed values probably would add clarity. Section 3.2 Figure 3 could perhaps make it more clear that C and K are not necessarily equal. The term "side information" is used without definition (and is not used in RFC 7845). Does this clause really add anything in comparison to if we just say "The matrix MUST be provided in the channel mapping table portion of the identification header, in place of a normal channel mapping table"? Section 5.1 Family 255 is specified in Section 5.1.1.3 of RFC 7845, not 5.1.1.4. (Also, the unqualified Section references should probably all be of the form Section N of RFC 7845, for the benefift of the HTML linkification tooling.) Section 8 Sometimes I see a "Description" column that allows for in-registry visibility that a range is for experimental usage. I suppose it would not be too hard to also modify the registry structure to add such a thing, if you want. _______________________________________________ codec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec
