Re: [rmcat] Agenda items for Seoul?

Anna Brunstrom <> Sun, 06 November 2016 14:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9751296DD for <>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:16:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2oAVyt1u9zob for <>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:16:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DCFD12967A for <>; Sun, 6 Nov 2016 06:16:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Spam-Processed:, Sun, 06 Nov 2016 15:16:19 +0100 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDArrival-Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 15:16:19 +0100
References: <>
From: Anna Brunstrom <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 15:16:04 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rmcat] Agenda items for Seoul?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 14:16:32 -0000

Dear all,

We have received very few agenda requests for Seoul so we still have 
time for more items on the agenda. We would like some feedback on how to 
best spend this time, some thoughts and questions below.

We were in a rush when discussing the results from the candidate 
algorithms last time. Would it be good to revisit the results from the 
candidate algorithms and their relation to the test cases - to see if 
there are any outstanding issues here or if all the authors have 
interpreted them in the same way and the results are comparable. So we 
can get a complete picture of what has been tested in the different 
cases. Will the authors of the candidate algorithms be in Seoul?

The framework document has not yet been accepted as a wg document, but 
there is agreement that this document is needed. Would it be good to 
spend some time on this, revisiting what we have, having a look at the 
terminology and architecture described and to review whether the 
document covers all the pieces we need.

We already have a presentation scheduled for the feedback DT. Will this 
include Michael Ramalho's suggestions to optimise the format that came 
later, or do we need additional time for this?

We have a number of the wg drafts that have been updated since the last 
meeting. Do any of them need agenda time?

Please let us know what you think.

Anna, Colin and Martin

On 2016-10-29 18:50, Anna Brunstrom wrote:
> Dear all,
> As you have seen we have a usual 2.5 hour slot reserved for rmcat at 
> IETF Seoul (Thursday, Afternoon Session II 1520-1750).
> Please let us know your agenda requests asap indicating:
> 1: presenter's name
> 2: title
> 3: length of the presentation
> Thanks,
> Anna & Martin