|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
RFC - Proposed Standard, approved in 2017
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
Opus is the Audio Codec applied on the communication plaform used under G.CMVTQS to develop and validate the model described in the document.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC adopted in 2017.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
Updates RFC 6716
|
|
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,/
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,/
./
/
[RFC6716] Valin, JM., Vos, K., and T. Terriberry, "Definition of the/
Opus Audio Codec", RFC 6716, DOI 10.17487/RFC6716,/
September 2012, ./
/
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC/
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,/
May 2017,
|
|
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):
|
|
|
|
