January 2012 - Rtp-congestion

Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-00.txt
by Harald Alvestrand 19 Jan '12

19 Jan '12

This is the broken-out version of the REMB message that was published in an appendix of the congestion-control draft I posted just before Taipei. After discussions inside Google, we decided that the timestamp header extension didn't offer enough value over the RFC 5450 send-time offset header extension, so we dropped it from the draft. Harald -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-00.txt Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:54:00 -0800 From: internet-drafts(a)ietf.org To: harald(a)alvestrand.no CC: harald(a)alvestrand.no A new version of I-D, draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Harald Alvestrand and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-alvestrand-rmcat-remb Revision: 00 Title: RTCP message for Receiver Estimated Maximum Bitrate Creation date: 2012-01-17 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 7 Abstract: This document proposes an RTCP message for use in experimentally- deployed congestion control algorithms for RTP-based media flows. The IETF Secretariat

2 3

suggesting a BoF in Paris
by Wesley Eddy 16 Jan '12

16 Jan '12

Hello folks, as you know, I'd circulated a charter to the IESG for "internal review", proposing to start a working group on this topic. Based on feedback and discussion with fellow ADs, I've decided to slow down a little, and would like to suggest that some of you work up a TSV BoF proposal for Paris. I would hope this could be a WG-forming BoF, and that in the time leading up to it, we could be formulating a few things into I-Ds to discuss, in order to test/demonstrate that the group is on the same page: 1 - problem statement(s) (there are pieces of a few emails that could be a good start to this) 2 - requirements (again, there are a few emails that could be a starting point for this) 3 - proposed algorithms and other mechanisms (there is at least one I-D that fits this, more would be good, especially as there are multiple facets of the problem to be addressed) 4 - thoughts on how to test and evaluate algorithms (there seem to be less concrete thoughts on this so far?) Holding a WG-forming BoF would be a bit more conventional process, but potentially lead to greater success and seem less like we are creating a WG out of thin air. Another big advantage that was pointed out to me is that the BoF does help draw attention and perhaps bring more people and expertise to the group. BoF proposals are due 2/13 according to the cut-off dates list. Some procedures and guidelines are: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/bof-procedures.html -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems

1 0

proposing a WG on RTP congestion control
by Wesley Eddy 11 Jan '12

11 Jan '12

Hello all, following up on our discussion in Taipei, I have proposed a working group in the TSV area to work on RTP congestion control. This is scheduled to be discussed by the IESG on 1/5 in "internal review". The draft charter is at: http://www.ietf.org/iesg/evaluation/rmcat-charter.txt I would welcome participants in this list to comment on this, particularly if/when it moves to "external review", as I would expect the folks currently on this list to be some of the main participants in the proposed WG. I had previously had this reviewed by the TSV Directorate, and got fairly good responses and strong interest expressed from many of the directorate in participating as well. Happy New Year! -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems

6 8