Dear Victoria,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments. Please see inline below.
On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 7:25 PM Victoria Pritchard <pritchardv0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir
Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
Document: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-05
Reviewer: Victoria Pritchard
Review Date: 01/09/2022
Intended Status: Informational
Summary:
This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.
Comments:
This is an interesting and informative draft, clearly identifying use cases and the reliability, availability and latency characteristics which are important to them.
Major Issues:
No major issues found.
Minor Issues:
No minor issues found.
Nits:
Introduction
- "by leveraging on lower (L2 and below) capabilities" -> "by leveraging lower layer (Layer 2 and below) capabilities"?
[Carlos] OK, thanks, changed!
- " (RAW) is an effort to provide Deterministic
Networking Mechanisms on across a multi-hop path that includes a" - dont need both 'on' and 'across'
[Carlos] OK, thanks, fixed!
No terminology / acronyms / abbreviations section - most are actually expanded inside the draft or are very well known but a few I did not understand, e.g.:
- APT/TMA TMA/ENR ENR/ORP in figure 1
- FRE in section 6.4
[Carlos] Thanks, we have clarified/expanded these terms. We might add a terminology section as well.
Figure 1
- transceiver appears twice at the bottom left - is one instance meant to be for LDACS GS on the right hand side of the figure?
[Carlos] I think it is meant to be for the "Airport based", but I'll check with the LDACS experts.
2
- "while during
en-route" --> "during flight" / "while en-route" - don't need both.
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
2.5.1
- "what it is important is to keep " - "what is important is to keep"
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
3.1, 4.1, 5.1, etc. the sub-heading title
- capital letters needed for "use-case". Should section 2.1 also be "Use-Case Description"?
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed! Not sure if the capitalization is correct (this would be fixed by the RFC Editor anyway). I've used "Use-Case" for the time being, as I agree it's important to be consistent in the titles and headings.
4.4
- teh -> the
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
5.1
- Blue-Ray -> Blu-ray
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
6.4
- "Note thought," -> "Note though,"
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
- "Dual/multiple link" - the sentence after this is hard to read, does it mean "due to the competitions, interference is common"? Or "due to the fact that competitions and interference are common"?
[Carlos] The second one, thanks, fixed!
7.1 "other time of vehicles" -> "other types of vehicles"?
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
8.1 "the use of multiples robots" -> "the use of multiple robots"
[Carlos] Thanks, fixed!
10 - "Future revisions of this document will include
specific text devoted to highlight this non-latency critical
requirements."This seems to have already been added as a sub-section for all use cases.
[Carlos] True, thanks!
All changes are incorporated in the pre -06 version. We will post a new version once we get all the comments from the directorates and IESG review.
Thanks a lot!
Carlos
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
