Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10

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: rmcat-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test@ietf.org, Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>, rmcat@ietf.org, ietf@kuehlewind.net, csp@csperkins.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Document Action: 'Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals'
  (draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-10.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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test/


Technical Summary

   This document describes test cases that can be used for performance
   evaluation of the congestion control algorithms being developed by the
   RMCAT working group. These are suitable for laboratory experiments, in
   a controlled testbed environment, and are intended to demonstrate the
   basic suitability of the algorithms. They will complement, but do not
   replace, real-world testing.

Working Group Summary

  WG determined that draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria was getting unwieldy
  and over-long, and decided to split the test cases out into a separate
  draft. This was done at IETF 89, with the result being adopted as WG
  item at IETF 90. Steady discussion since then, gradually accumulating
  test cases as the candidate congestion control algorithm, and the WGs
  experiences with them, have developed. No particular controversies.

Document Quality

  The draft has been carefully reviewed by the WG, including by the
  implementers of the candidate congestion control algorithms, and
  has received extensive input based on evaluation experience. The
  test cases presented represent a good consensus from the WG about
  what is needed for basic evaluation of the algorithms. No MIB Doctor,
  Media Type, or other expert review needed or undertaken.

Personnel

  The document shepherd is Colin Perkins.
  The responsible AD is Mirja K├╝hlewind.