[Detnet] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf-raw-technologies-16: (with COMMENT)

[Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]>]

Hello again Ketan 😀


Le mar. 22 avr. 2025 à 08:53, Ketan Talaulikar <[e-mail]> a
écrit :

> Hi Pascal,
>
> Thanks for your response and please check inline below for clarifications.
>
> These are suggestions to improve the document, so I will leave it to the
> discretion of the authors and the WG.
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 6:10 PM Pascal Thubert <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Ketan
>>
>> Many thanks for your review!
>>
>> I committed the diffs here
>> Review by Ketan Talaulikar · raw-wg/raw-technologies@6de06b9
>> <https://github.com/raw-wg/raw-technologies/commit/6de06b9c3fa182f61814fc99bae06406b8fedabf#diff-89e305fce7837f4a99f69cf0bf990684d04ac359c9236b40db71abc2b1a466cd>
>> and expect to publish soon (with a review by Eric V.)
>>
>> Le jeu. 3 avr. 2025 à 08:38, Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <
>> [e-mail]> a écrit :
>>
>>> Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-raw-technologies-16: 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-raw-technologies/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> COMMENT:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks to the authors, contributors, and the WG for the work put into
>>> this very
>>> informative document.
>>>
>>> I have a few comments/suggestions that I would like to share:
>>>
>>> 1) There is scope for refining the document text (considering US
>>> English). I am
>>> not going into an editorial review mode due to lack of time, but I could
>>> recommend some tools to help - please reach out offline, if interested.
>>>
>>>
>> Let us trust the rFC editor on this
>>
>
> KT> I believe that we can do a better job by utilizing the tools that are
> easily available today to take care of such editorial things. Why not
> improve the document earlier in the cycle?
>

I trust people and their preferred tools : ) but still, I'm wide open to
your recommendations for this or other activities!


>
>
>>
>>
>>> 2) Abstract:
>>>
>>> Suggest to remove this sentence since, IMHO, it does not belong: "Those
>>> technologies were selected as part of the RAW WG formation and listed in
>>> the WG
>>> charter."
>>>
>>>
>> It was added that for another review! We need a rough consensus.
>>
>
> KT> Suggest: "The technologies were selected by the WG based on its
> charter at the time of publication of this document." or something like
> that - IMHO that would age well in an RFC. Charters are not set in stone
> and do change.
>
>

The whole abstract was rewritten. I hope the new form is OK?
"
   This document surveys the short and middle range radio technologies
   that are suitable to provide a Deterministic Networking / Reliable
   and Available Wireless (RAW) service over, presents the
   characteristics that RAW may leverage, and explores the applicability
   of the technologies to carry deterministic flows, as of its time of
   publication.  The studied technologies are Wi-Fi 6/7, TimeSlotted
   Channel Hopping (TSCH), 3GPP 5G, and L-band Digital Aeronautical
   Communications System (LDACS).
"


>
>>
>>
>>> 3) Section 1:
>>>
>>> CURRENT
>>> Those technologies were selected as part of the WG formation and listed
>>> in the
>>> WG charter.
>>>
>>> SUGGEST
>>> The technologies studied in this document were identified in the charter
>>> during
>>> the DetNet WG formation or as part of subsequent re-charter (when the WG
>>> picked
>>> up the work on RAW).
>>>
>>>
>> NOt exactly. That was the RAW charter, not that of DetNet.
>> What about:
>> "
>> The technologies studied in this document were identified in the charter
>> during the RAW WG formation and inherited by DetNet (when the WG picked up
>> the work on RAW).
>> "
>>
>
> KT> Sure.
>
>
>>  ?
>>
>>> 4) Section 1:
>>>
>>> CURRENT
>>> The purpose for this is to support work at RAW to justify and enable
>>> DetNet
>>> work on those and possibly more compatible technologies.
>>>
>>> SUGGEST
>>> The purpose of this document is to support and enable work on the these
>>> (and
>>> possibly other similar compatible technologies) at the IETF specifically
>>> in the
>>> DetNet working group working on RAW.
>>>
>>> done!
>>
>
> KT> Great. And thanks again for a good document that gives an excellent
> overview of the involved technologies.
>

Pleasure :) Many thanks for your help here!

Pascal


>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
>>
>> Many thanks Ketan!
>> --
>> Pascal
>>
>

-- 
Pascal