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

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

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 The justification for the intended status is really weird and outdated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
>
>
>
>