IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis?

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 13 November 2017 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDBF128BA2 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:47:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dcmAqdmEkg1Y for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F2D4126B6E for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:47:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx02.uio.no ([129.240.10.43]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1eEAPB-00065N-3l for rmcat@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:47:45 +0100
Received: from dhcp-82c4.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.130.196]) by mail-mx02.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1eEAPA-0004q5-FJ for rmcat@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Nov 2017 09:47:45 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Message-Id: <440EBA4E-CD3E-4434-A475-C880D9DFD815@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:47:41 +0800
To: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx02.uio.no: 31.133.130.196 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=31.133.130.196; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=dhcp-82c4.meeting.ietf.org;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.058, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 889AE024F4F0720D941B62B86793656EDF5C82DD
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/GOj8Es9UX6fLpFEe_47CuG76tlg>
Subject: [rmcat] RMCAT, quo vadis?
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 08:47:49 -0000

Hi,

I’m getting the impression that rmcat is ignored in WebRTC, and I don’t think that’s a good development. The rtcweb overview draft ( draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-19.txt ) has just been approved as a Proposed Standard, but it doesn’t mention RMCAT at all. Will people find our documents? Are we going to be ignored by design?

There’s also this interesting sentence towards the end of the SIGCOMM 2017 paper on QUIC:
"Third, we are working on using QUIC for WebRTC [4] and intend to explore avenues for better supporting real-time payloads.”

What do people think about these matters?

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email