Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: RFC Editor <email@example.com>, rmcat mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, rmcat chair <email@example.com> Subject: Document Action: 'Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media' (draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Spencer Dawkins and Martin Stiemerling. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements/
Technical Summary The document describes requirements for real-time media congestion control. With the standardization of RTCWeb, an increasing amount of real-time media is expected in the Internet and this traffic needs to be appropriately congestion- controlled. Real-time media traffic has quite different requirements for congestion control as compared to most Internet traffic. The requirements are listed in this document to develop and later evaluate a congestion control scheme that is more suitable for real-time media traffic than today's existing schemes. Working Group Summary There was quite a lot discussion in the working group on how to define fairness (mainly in respect to evaluation criteria document). For this document the working group decided to leave the definition of fairness open (to be addressed in the evaluation criteria document). Only self-fairness was defined (as roughly equal bandwidth). There was a discussion on RTT-fairness. This was added as an optional requirement ("if possible"). Additionally this document addresses requirements to handle different RTP streams multiplexed into one connection (5-tuple) or different DSCP markings within one connection. Those points were discussed on the RTCWeb and RMCAT mailing lists. Document Quality This document is an informational requirements document, thus there are no implementations... The document received several rounds of reviews in total of 10 different persons (including 4 in WGLC and 2 from people mainly working in RTCweb) leading to discussions with even more people involved. These discussions led to several additions and small modifications to the requirements. The document contains two references to other w-g documents of RTCWeb and RMCAT. Personnel Mirja Kühlewind (firstname.lastname@example.org) is Docoment Shepherd and one of the RMCAT working group chairs. Spencer Dawkins <email@example.com> is the responsible Area Director.