Evaluating Congestion Control for Interactive Real-Time Media

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, varun.singh@iki.fi, Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>, rmcat@ietf.org, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria@ietf.org, csp@csperkins.org, rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, ietf@kuehlewind.net
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 K├╝hlewind and Magnus Westerlund.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

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.


  The shepherd is Colin Perkins. The responsible area directory is Mirja

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.