thanks! On 12 Dec 2014, at 11:54, Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] >> Sent: den 26 november 2014 01:44 >> To: Alexey Melnikov; [email protected] >> Cc: Jari Arkko; [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
