Subject: [codec] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-13: (with COMMENT)

From: "Joel Jaeggli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:00:16 -0800

Joel Jaeggli has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-codec-oggopus-13: 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-oggopus/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Bradner performed the OPSdir review.

There was an ask for a paragraph covering the following

That said, I wonder if it would be possible to as a OAM-like ability to
support "in-band" condition information - for example by adding an OAM
channel to the channel mapping function (i.e. the "Opus Channel Mapping
Families" registry) where the definition would be that the channel is for
the use of OAM services and is otherwise passed unmodified.  Having the
ability to have real time "what the customer is seeing" RTCP like, but
with more expansion abilities, feedback could be quite helpful
operations-wise

which has not yet come to conclusion.

---

From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:27:37 -0800

> which has not yet come to conclusion.

I'll attempt to summarize where I think the discussion currently is: 
both Scott and I agreed that it is probably too late in the process to 
make changes to the channel mappings in this document, and that could be 
done later via the IANA registry. A general paragraph stating that 
someone should be thinking about OAM type things would be welcome, but I 
don't feel qualified to write one, and we currently lack a volunteer to 
do so.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 22:36:01 -0800

> don't feel qualified to write one, and we currently lack a volunteer to

yup, I don't hold a discuss so I'm not an obstacle to progress, but if
we come up with that either collectively or indivudally then great.