Re: [rmcat] How to handle remaining milestones

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ingemar,

As we discussed in the meeting, I think we’re looking for some deployment experience before we progress candidate algorithms to proposed standard.

Colin


> On 19 Nov 2019, at 18:39, Ingemar Johansson S <ingemar.s.johansson=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi
>  
> My plan is to drive an update of RFC8298 towards proposed standard status if that is seen as important enough.
> That update would also specify the L4S support either as implemented in the example running code or some improved version of it. 
> Still I would like to see more real life deployment experience, to get an understanding of the possible outstanding issues that need to be fixed.
> The problem is that SCReAM has not been deployed/experimented with other than in a use case with remote controlled vehicles  and I don’t foresee any wider deployment in other contexts for the moment. 
>  
> Question is if this is sufficient for a proposed standard status ?
>  
> /Ingemar
>  
> From: Anna Brunström <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: den 18 november 2019 15:47
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [rmcat] How to handle remaining milestones
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> As part of the WG status overview in tomorrow’s rmcat meeting at IETF106 we want to bring up how to handle our remaining milestones:
>  
> Jul 2019            Publish first draft of evaluation results
> Jul 2019            Publish first draft of Standards Track congestion control algorithm                                                                                                                          
> Nov 2019          Submit interactions between applications and RTP flows to IESG as Informational
> Nov 2019          Submit congestion control to IESG for Proposed Standard 
>  
> One approach for how to move forward could be to gather evaluation results and experiences for the next 12 months or so (with meetings only if there are results to report) and then evaluate the status and whether to pursue further work. But the way forward of course depends on the interest of the working group and the intentions of the algorithm authors. 
>  
> We just wanted to give a heads up for this discussion point so you all have a chance to think about it beforehand, also as it is not directly visible in the agenda as it is part of the WG status review. Any comment on the mailing list is of course also welcome!
>  
> Best Regards,
> Anna (for the chairs)
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Anna Brunstrom
> Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
> Karlstad University
> 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden
> Phone:   [phone]
> E-mail:  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------