Re: [Raw] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-08: (with COMMENT)

[CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>]

OK, thanks a lot Éric!

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 12:27 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Gracias Carlos for the prompt reply
>
>
>
> I agree with all suggested changes (or absence of change as it seems that
> in English there is no plural form for aircraft -- I am as puzzled as you!)
>
>
>
> At this stage (IESG evaluation), there is no need to contact DRIP and
> IPWAVE, but this was a missed opportunity to get more reviews.
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> -éric
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Friday, 2 December 2022 at 11:59
> *To: *Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "
> [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-08:
> (with COMMENT)
>
>
>
> Dear Éric,
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your comments. Please see some responses inline below.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:24 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-08: 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-use-cases/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> # Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-08
> CC @evyncke
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document. I really like the common
> format
> used for all the use cases.
>
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS points (easy to address), some
> non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only
> for
> my own education), and some nits.
>
> Special thanks to Corinna Schmitt for the shepherd's detailed write-up
> including the WG consensus *but* with a very weird justification of the
> intended status.
>
> Please note that Suresh Krishnan is the Internet directorate reviewer (at
> my
> request) and you may want to consider this int-dir reviews as well:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-raw-use-cases-08-intdir-telechat-krishnan-2022-11-28/
> (I saw that Carlos has already replied)
>
> I hope that this review helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> ## DISCUSS
>
> As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/, a
> DISCUSS ballot is a request to have a discussion on the following topics:
>
> ###
>
> ## COMMENTS
>
> ### Shepherd's write-up
>
> The justification for the intended status is really weird and outdated
> (such
> write-ups can be updated): ``` Standard Track is mentioned, but reading it
> I
> assume “Informational” is meant. Request is send out. ```
>
> ### Quantitative approach ?
>
> While this I-D is easy and interesting to read, it would have been more
> useful
> if actual numbers were given per use case, e.g., bounded latency, max
> packet
> loss, ...
>
>
>
> [Carlos] We'll try to add some quantitative numbers here and there in the
> next revision.
>
>
>
>
> ### Section 1
>
> Is the use of capitalized "Deterministic Networking" a reference to the
> work of
> the DETNET WG ? Then, let's state it else suggest not to use capitalized
> words.
> Later in the text "DetNet" is used, it would be nice to use a common
> naming.
>
>
>
> [Carlos] We'll fix this. Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> ### Section 4.3
>
> Are "Ethernet cables" still used ? As opposed to optical fiber (notably for
> noise reduction)
>
>
>
> [Carlos] Yes, they are in some cases. But I agree it's better to
> generalize to "wires" in general and put Ethernet cables and optical fiber
> as examples. We'll rewrite this in the next revision.
>
>
>
>
> ### Section 5
>
> Suggest to add a reference to RFC 9317 "Operational Considerations for
> Streaming Media"
>
>
>
> [Carlos] OK!
>
>
>
>
> ### Section 7
>
> Like Murray, I wonder whether DRIP & IPWAVE WGs were made aware of this
> section.
>
>
>
> [Carlos] I think DRIP was not chartered yet when we drafted this section
> and IPWAVE was not really active (formally closed since very recently). Do
> you think we should ask for feedback to DRIP?
>
>
>
>
> ## NITS
>
> ### Section 2
>
> s/Aircraft are /Aircrafts are /
>
>
>
> [Carlos] I think John has mentioned that Aircraft is correct. I'll check
> as I'm not a native speaker.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> ## Notes
>
> This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use
> the
> [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
> individual GitHub issues.
>
> [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
> [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments
>
>
>