Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals
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, The IESG <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Colin Perkins <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 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 Kühlewind 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 Kühlewind.