Media Server Control Markup Language (MSCML) and Protocol
RFC 4722

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, <iana@iana.org>, ietf-announce@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-vandyke-mscml-10.txt 

The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Media Server Control 
Markup Language (MSCML) and Protocol' <draft-vandyke-mscml-10.txt> as an 
Informational RFC. 

The IESG would also like the IRSG or RFC-Editor to review the comments in 
the datatracker 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=9670&rfc_flag=0) 
related to this document and determine whether or not they merit 
incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the ballot 
and the comment log. 

The IESG contact person is Cullen Jennings.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vandyke-mscml-10.txt


The process for such documents is described at http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html.

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

Technical Summary
 
 This document specifies a protocol to control a media server that provides 
 interactive voice response (IVR) functions as well as conferencing services. 

 The IESG has not found any conflict between this document and IETF
 work.

 
Working Group Summary
 
  This specification is an individual submission via the RFC Editor.

  This work is related to work in the XCON WG but the XCON charter specifies 
  this work as out of scope. 

Protocol Quality
 
    This document was reviewed by Dan Wing. Cullen Jennings reviewed for 
    conflict with existing IETF work.  The MIME registration was sent to
    ietf-types for review on Aug 23, 2005. 

IESG Note

      This RFC is not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard.
      The IETF disclaims any knowledge of the fitness of this RFC for
      any purpose and in particular notes that the decision to publish
      is not based on IETF review for such things as security,
      congestion control, or inappropriate interaction with deployed
      protocols.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
      its discretion.  Readers of this document should exercise caution
      in evaluating its value for implementation and deployment.  See
      RFC 3932 for more information.
 
IANA Note

   None