From AD review.

From AD review.

Removed 2119 language for general Ogg requirements.
Added IANA registry for channel mapping families.
Adjusted additional copyright grant to match RFC 6716.
Additional comments addressed (see the CODEC mailing list).

Mark Harris convinced me that the significant delay between "WG
 consensus" and "RFC" means we shouldn't rely on RFC updates to
 give people permission to start deploying new things.

Thanks to Mark Harris for the report.

Also remove most <preamble>/<postamble> usage for expository text,
 as most places center the result, which looks ugly (only local
 xml2rfc HTML output does not center: tools.ietf.org HTML output
 still does, as does the .txt version).

To avoid confusion with an RFC 6716 encoder/decoder.
No part of this document is intended to update RFC 6716.

I *think* all we need to do is document this and the RFC editors
will take care of it.

We mention this in the description of Channel Mapping Family 0.
Might as well link to RFC 7587.

Review comment from Mo Zanaty.

This improves readability in the xml2rfc html output, but
generates Markdown-style *bold* in the txt output, and
more importantly in the nroff-like html output of the
tools.ietf.org toolchain, which Mo Zanaty and some in
IRC objected to.

Based on Mo Zanaty's review comments.

Response to comments from Mo Zanaty. Using "muxer/demuxer"
really isn't less ambiguous than "encoder/decoder" but does
help distinguish between this draft and a 'codec encoder/decoder'
described by the Opus RFC.

This version resolves some issues with the packet size limits
 raised by Mark Harris.

1. Removed an inappropriate normative MAY.
2. Gave an explicit range of sample rates deemed to be "non-crazy".
3. Give explicit guidance on packet sizes that SHOULD and MAY be rejected.

This is just a should, so we want to leave the RFC 6716 reference
to the second occurance, but using the same language ties them
together and to the later occurances.

The Opus RFC doesn't really say what to do beyond rejecting
a particular packet, but having the reference reinforces that
we're trying to leverage the same constraints in the specific
context of ogg encapsulation, and this isn't a new rule.

Suggestion from mark4o.

This avoids confusion with the number of frames being defined
by more than the first byte with code 3 packets.

Patch from mark4o.

The macros take arguments, they aren't just constants. Thanks to
mark4o for the report.

Add a limit of no more than 6 characters for these tags' values.

SHOULD or SHOULD NOT. There is no attempt.

From the codec wg mailing list thread
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg03107.html

These are normative whether capitalized or not. Capitalize the ones
which make sense as normative requirements, and reword the rest.

We want to general guidelines for stream-level encapsulation to
apply to multiplexed as well as degenerate streams. 'Files' can
therefore specific to the mine-type discussion for unmultiplexed
Ogg physical streams.

These are the changes proposed in
 <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec/current/msg03058.html>,
 with some minor additions (see follow-up on the list).

Promote the new tag definitions to a separate subsection,
balance tags, improve wording, and document our motivation
for the R128 tags.