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

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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The justification for the intended status is really weird and outdated (such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, ...

### 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.

### Section 4.3

Are "Ethernet cables" still used ? As opposed to optical fiber (notably for
noise reduction)

### Section 5

Suggest to add a reference to RFC 9317 "Operational Considerations for
Streaming Media"

### Section 7

Like Murray, I wonder whether DRIP & IPWAVE WGs were made aware of this section.

## NITS

### Section 2

s/Aircraft are /Aircrafts are /

## 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