On 15/03/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote:> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:23:47PM +0000, Mathias Kunter wrote: > > > > In contrast to that, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt stats the following: > > "Ogg Vorbis provides the name and revision of the Vorbis codec, > > the audio rate and the audio quality on the Ogg Vorbis bos page. > > It also uses TWO additional header pages per logical bitstream."Sounds like ogg would ALWAYS use a total of three header PAGES for its three header PACKAGES. Is this actually the case? > > Ouch. This is incorrect. It should read "It uses two additional header > packets per logical bitstream."Yow. Ralph, Silvia, should we consider creating an updated Ogg Internet-Draft and fixing / clarifying this and any other recent issues? Silvia, do you still have the source for RFC3533? Conrad.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:27:05PM +1100, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:> >Yow. Ralph, Silvia, should we consider creating an updated Ogg > >Internet-Draft and fixing / clarifying this and any other recent > >issues? > > This requires to replace the old RFC with a new one and going through > the whole RFC process again and deprecate the old spec. I would > suggest if we want to do so to poll for further fixes that may be > necessary to the RFC.Perhaps after we have a better handle on the muxing issues. In the meantime, I created a wiki page so we can collect errata for public reference and ideas for the update. http://wiki.xiph.org/RFC_3533_Errata Consider it linked. :) -r
On 3/15/07, Conrad Parker <conrad@metadecks.org> wrote:> On 15/03/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 12:23:47PM +0000, Mathias Kunter wrote: > > > > > > In contrast to that, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt stats the following: > > > "Ogg Vorbis provides the name and revision of the Vorbis codec, > > > the audio rate and the audio quality on the Ogg Vorbis bos page. > > > It also uses TWO additional header pages per logical bitstream."Sounds like ogg would ALWAYS use a total of three header PAGES for its three header PACKAGES. Is this actually the case? > > > > Ouch. This is incorrect. It should read "It uses two additional header > > packets per logical bitstream."Oh! A "packet" "page" twister! Damned...> Yow. Ralph, Silvia, should we consider creating an updated Ogg > Internet-Draft and fixing / clarifying this and any other recent > issues?This requires to replace the old RFC with a new one and going through the whole RFC process again and deprecate the old spec. I would suggest if we want to do so to poll for further fixes that may be necessary to the RFC.> Silvia, do you still have the source for RFC3533?Hmm... I'm sure it will be somewhere... Silvia.