|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Normative
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
This reference defines mechanisms to improve reliable transport over IP networks. V.MoIP makes many references to RFC 2198 as the mechanism to improve reliability when using RTP as a transport protocol.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=2198
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
This RFC has been in existence since September 1997.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
This reference is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state. Current standards status of this document can be found at ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/std/std1.txt
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 2198 is a component of the suite of internet protocols and standards and is widely used by the internet community.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] V.J. Hardman, M.A. Sasse, M. Handley and A. Watson; Reliable Audio for Use over the Internet; Proceedings INET'95, Honalulu, Oahu, Hawaii, September 1995. http://www.isoc.org/in95prc//
[2] Schulzrinne, H., Casner, S., Frederick R., and V. Jacobson, "RTP:A Transport Protocol for Real-Time Applications", RFC 1889, January 1996./
[3] Schulzrinne, H., "RTP Profile for Audio and Video Conferences with Minimal Control", RFC 1890, January 1996./
[4] M. Yajnik, J. Kurose and D. Towsley; Packet loss correlation in the MBone multicast network; IEEE Globecom Internet workshop, London, November 1996./
[5] J.-C. Bolot and A. Vega-Garcia; The case for FEC-based error control for packet audio in the Internet; ACM Multimedia Systems, 1997./
[6] Handley, M., and V. Jacobson, "SDP: Session Description Protocol (draft 03.2)", Work in Progress./
[7] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to indicate requirement levels", RFC 2119, March 1997.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
