Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Colin Perkins <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Martin Stiemerling <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com Subject: Document Action: 'Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-14.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-time Media' (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-14.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mirja Kühlewind and Magnus Westerlund. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria/
Technical Summary The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in telephony and video conferencing applications. This draft describes guidelines for how to evaluate new congestion control algorithms for interactive point-to-point real-time media. Working Group Summary This draft started early in the lifetime of the working group. There was some extensive discussion leading up to its adoption as a working group draft at IETF 89. Since then, the scope has gradually narrowed and some work has been split out into draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test, but there has been little controversy - slow progress has been rather a sign that the group has focussed on congestion control algorithm design, rather than on revising the evaluation criteria. Document Quality No media type, MIB doctor, or similar expert review needed. The working draft has seen several evaluations of congestion control algorithms such as NADA and SCReAM, and these have been based on the evaluation criteria described in this draft, and in the other evaluation drafts. The criteria seem mature and have been implemented. Personnel The shepherd is Colin Perkins. The responsible area directory is Mirja Kühlewind.
RFC Editor Note Nit: In section 2 last word should be "applies" instead of "apply" as Barry kindly pointed out. Editors forgot to fix that nit in the last revision.