[Raw] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-09: (with COMMENT)

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-09: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and substantive COMMENTs.

===

** Section 2.5.

   Different safety levels need to be supported, from extremely safety
   critical ones requiring low latency, such as a WAKE warning - a
   warning that two aircraft come dangerously close to each other - and
   high resiliency, to less safety critical ones requiring low-medium
   latency for services such as WXGRAPH - graphical weather data.

I can appreciate the abstract idea of using certain information for safety
critical decision making.  However, can more detail be provided to translate
the “safety levels” to requirements of the data link or the “RAW protocol”? 
Mentioned already seems to be “low” vs. “low-medium” latency; and “high
resiliency” which should be read as guaranteed delivery or ability to use
multiple paths/radio technologies?  Or is “low latency” translated into a
design as the subsequent text suggests of “small packets” and resiliency
primarily about “choosing links”

** Section 2.5.*.  Low latency is stated as a requirement a few times.  Can
this be expressed quantitatively?  Use case owners (and readers) might have
their own subjective idea of what constitutes “low”.

** Section 3.2.
      Some non-time-critical tasks may
      rather use the cloud (predictive maintenance, marketing).

-- Marketing is mentioned as an example of a computational workload appropriate
for the cloud but it isn’t noted as an application in Section 3.1.  Perhaps it
should be made more explicit.

-- If these tasks are “non-time-critical”, why can’t traditional wireless
technologies address them (i.e., why can’t they be solved without RAW)?

** Section 6.1.
      But Wi-Fi has an
      especially bad reputation among the gaming community.  The main
      reasons are high latency, lag spikes, and jitter.

This statement is suggestion a subjective assessment of the user experience. 
Is it technically accurate?