|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
RFC - Proposed Standard, approved in 2012
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Opus is the audio coder applied on the communication platform on which the model recommended in G.CMVTQS has been developped and validated.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Basic description of the codec.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Approved in 2012, uodate in 2017 with RFC 8251
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
None
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate/
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
|
