From nobody Fri Dec 2 02:59:15 2022 Return-Path: X-Original-To: raw@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: raw@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5516CC14CEE2 for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 02:59:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.995 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it.uc3m.es Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vfcP9kVMyCZv for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 02:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lf1-x133.google.com (mail-lf1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2846C14CEEA for ; Fri, 2 Dec 2022 02:59:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x133.google.com with SMTP id c1so6842801lfi.7 for ; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 02:59:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it.uc3m.es; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tYlIjJl+QNTbLJQpytvuOhaym+6WySq9yR/OSVUK68A=; b=qSDYyS2N66lNtGeUCEpWpw9wzpw5h3wlgImrC/fZUQxYkyr5wQ00MjOnipiLKmkZpR NcLiHyvgXJuqmymZ9wd6KPIND/X+HJ882IrRw9FU55OYrw/Mk/FB3IzlzurtrK6UZ7po BtVg78jNbc6imBhuWK+xYTqvUIXmPq5csFr0aeOooHp4UwiHaHSXWxxLYPKVmf2C/pST GWyi+z313PT24jBf4kE2Zu6O44eWXxlpjr785RpovxOzy4A/sZ7oUh75duqVlHdo7FyZ iOJFtHrE/DX6NR9sMMFhUjHvwl4ATN6XDIvRmfPQ9MUFOv4hUnalEZWuTnsidZ8tMSBx BAYw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tYlIjJl+QNTbLJQpytvuOhaym+6WySq9yR/OSVUK68A=; b=e3sLs99RSs6m583M2/zSds2cOrE1WcWKZQiCs/BExJtBwv/YLXJFz+tnetZGOLtKEB ixA2JMCxdJL3GQRdFkaVMWr5UYEW9S8doBnQiFApdEt+xUDff+gucABDL9n4Ln99v7Wf hEQsR6vazYM+4ZtO5a4GBeWm56Ck581NKLR4iselUWSIaqsOcYlFmkgcmqoNLu114FCQ UYRcqqzmyRoJpomoRamBQq1wDCLi7uv7cLfKrhCMosEMiB/eYOa53BBh6cr/94bAzFxH fTNRbSoh9f5cZlvpxIRPftPoH/SxvMuk2/D/zVCPBnct1/AUpJONiau5QRnC/H+Rp+uh BdLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pltXxNfXR4I0d6M4rx9U5DNjmTgjogs36MpFXOdwGiXTp973/jl bkzsPgRRQTtCGlD+3w6P7VactQSL/6OEcQI7WWhO4g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4r4AnPzgwODI459JTZ41gln2P+aN4Sfc7qohsd7yFnfaK5xwNDUq6tEr5c07DrKEGg15Kgz5uGAKfUtBgFyJ4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3ca9:b0:4b5:124d:eb6b with SMTP id h41-20020a0565123ca900b004b5124deb6bmr8465026lfv.571.1669978745625; Fri, 02 Dec 2022 02:59:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <166989027724.50875.11607981753608077640@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <166989027724.50875.11607981753608077640@ietfa.amsl.com> From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 11:58:49 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tl?= Cc: The IESG , draft-ietf-raw-use-cases@ietf.org, raw-chairs@ietf.org, raw@ietf.org, corinna.schmitt@unibw.de, suresh.krishnan@gmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000eabb4005eed639ef" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Raw] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-ietf-?= =?utf-8?q?raw-use-cases-08=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?= X-BeenThere: raw@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: reliable and available wireless List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 10:59:13 -0000 --000000000000eabb4005eed639ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear =C3=89ric, Thanks a lot for your comments. Please see some responses inline below. On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:24 AM =C3=89ric Vyncke via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > =C3=89ric 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-positio= ns/ > 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: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > # =C3=89ric 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 onl= y > 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-tele= chat-krishnan-2022-11-28/ > (I saw that Carlos has already replied) > > I hope that this review helps to improve the document, > > Regards, > > -=C3=A9ric > > ## 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 i= t > I > assume =E2=80=9CInformational=E2=80=9D 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 f= or > 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 us= e > 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 > > > > --000000000000eabb4005eed639ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear =C3=89ric,

Thanks= a lot for your comments. Please see some responses inline below.

On T= hu, Dec 1, 2022 at 11:24 AM =C3=89ric Vyncke via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
=C3=89ric 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-ie= tf-raw-use-cases/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------


# =C3=89ric 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 for= mat
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<= br> 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 m= y
request) and you may want to consider this int-dir reviews as well:
ht= tps://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,

-=C3=A9ric

## DISCUSS

As noted in https://www.ietf.org/blog/handl= ing-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 (suc= h
write-ups can be updated): ``` Standard Track is mentioned, but reading it = I
assume =E2=80=9CInformational=E2=80=9D is meant. Request is send out. ```
### Quantitative approach ?

While this I-D is easy and interesting to read, it would have been more use= ful
if actual numbers were given per use case, e.g., bounded latency, max packe= t
loss, ...

[Carlos] We'll try to add= some quantitative numbers here and there in the next revision.
= =C2=A0

### 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 capitalize= d words.
Later in the text "DetNet" is used, it would be nice to use a com= mon naming.

[Carlos] We'll fix this= . Thanks!
=C2=A0

### Section 4.3

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

[Carlos] Yes, they are= in some cases. But I agree it's better to generalize to "wires&qu= ot; in general and put Ethernet cables and optical fiber as examples. We= 9;ll rewrite this in the next revision.
=C2=A0

### Section 5

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

[Carlos] OK!
=C2=A0

### 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 activ= e (formally closed since very recently). Do you think we should ask for fee= dback 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&= #39;m not a native speaker.=C2=A0

Thanks!

Carlos


## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], Yo= u can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-commen= ts/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments



--000000000000eabb4005eed639ef--