Re: [rmcat] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-11: (with COMMENT)

[Colin Perkins <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The entire draft is informational guidance, so I wasn’t convinced anything in here is normative. That said, in the sense that you need to understand the material to be able to read the draft, I don’t disagree. I can move the references, if the IESG thinks it would be appropriate.

Colin



On 17 Oct 2022, at 21:39, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote:

> Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-rtp-cc-feedback/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It caught my attention that this document has no Normative references, which
> are documents "that must be read to understand...the technology in the new RFC"
> [1].
>
> In this case, it looks like most of the RFCs cited in the Introduction should
> be Normative:
>
>    The deployment of WebRTC systems [RFC8825] has resulted in high-
>    quality video conferencing seeing extremely wide use.  ...
>
>    To develop such congestion control, it is necessary to understand the
>    sort of congestion feedback that can be provided within the framework
>    of RTP [RFC3550] and the RTP Control Protocol (RTCP).  It then
>    becomes possible to determine if this is sufficient for congestion
>    control, or if some form of RTP extension is needed.
>
>    This memo considers unicast congestion feedback that can be sent
>    using RTCP under the RTP/SAVPF profile [RFC5124] (the secure version
>    of the RTP/AVPF profile [RFC4585]).  This profile was chosen as it
>    forms the basis for media transport in WebRTC [RFC8834] systems.
>    Nothing in this memo is specific to the secure version of the
>    profile, or to WebRTC, however.  It is also assumed that the
>    congestion control feedback mechanism described in [RFC8888], and
>    common RTCP extensions for efficient feedback [RFC5506], [RFC8108],
>    [RFC8861], and [RFC8872] are used.
>
> [1]
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/normative-informative-references/