Re: [Gen-art] LC review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05.txt

[Jari Arkko <[e-mail]>]

thanks!

On 12 Dec 2014, at 11:54, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer and all,
> 
> Now I have submitted a new version of the document.
> 
> I have addressed Alexey's review. Now RMCAT does not appear on the document  short title and as far as I am can see the comments from IESG reviews are also addressed.
> 
> BR
> 
> Zahed
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Zaheduzzaman Sarker and posted to the IETF repository.
> 
> Name:		draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements
> Revision:	09
> Title:		Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media
> Document date:	2014-12-12
> Group:		rmcat
> Pages:		12
> URL:            http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09.txt
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements/
> Htmlized:       http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09
> Diff:           http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-09
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: den 26 november 2014 01:44
>> To: Alexey Melnikov; [e-mail]
>> Cc: Jari Arkko; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Gen-art] LC review of draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05.txt
>> 
>> On 11/25/2014 09:50 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>>> Thanks for the review. (Were the comments adopted by the authors? This
>>> review is from August, but I cannot see a response...)
>> 
>> So, just to update the RMCAT crew, this document was approved on today's
>> telechat, pending comment disposition.
>> 
>> On the comments from Alexey's review - the term RMCAT doesn't appear in the
>> text, but still appears in the short title on each page, so his comment on
>> expanding/explaining RMCAT still applies. RTP and RTCP now do have
>> references, so that comment has been handled.
>> 
>> In addition, there were IESG evaluation comments from several ADs. The
>> comments from Brian and Barry were intended for me and the other ADs, so no
>> action required, but the other comments at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements/ballot/
>> should be considered. You should bask for a moment in the compliment Ted
>> included in his ballot.
>> 
>> Please let me know if/when you have a revised ID, and I'll send the approval
>> note to the secretariat.
>> 
>> And thanks for all your work on this.
>> 
>> Spencer, as responsible AD
>> 
>>> Jari
>>> 
>>> On 03 Aug 2014, at 21:37, Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>>>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>>> 
>>>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>>> 
>>>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>>>> you may receive.
>>>> 
>>>> Document: draft-ietf-rmcat-cc-requirements-05
>>>> Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov
>>>> Review Date: 3-Aug-2014
>>>> IETF LC End Date: 13-Aug-2014
>>>> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>>>> 
>>>> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational
>>>> RFC [ready with comments]
>>>> 
>>>> Major issues: None
>>>> Minor issues:
>>>> 
>>>> In Section 1: RMCAT is not explained/expanded, when mentioned for the first
>> time. Does this acronym need to be in the published RFC, e.g. would it be useful
>> for readers reading this document 10 years later?
>>>> 
>>>> RTP and RTCP need references.
>>>> 
>>>> In general, I found this document not to be very friendly to people who don't
>> follow RMCAT.
>>>> 
>>>> Nits/editorial comments: None
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gen-art mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>