Thanks a lot Stewart for the comments.
Please see inline below how we have addressed them in version -08.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 8:24 PM Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more information, please see the FAQ at
<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
Document: draft-ietf-raw-use-cases-07
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2022-10-06
IETF LC End Date: 2022-10-06
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
Summary:
A well written document ready for publication, but note the question on whether
the aero terminology is correct and the comment on haptics.
Major issues:
None
Minor issues:
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
SB> Is this term correct?
SB> Aircraft proximity is, I think, an AIRPROX event. WAKE I thought applied to
the vortex trails whereby a large aircraft disturbs the air in a way that makes
it unsafe for a smaller aircraft to fly through. It would be useful if an aero
specialist validated the term.
[Carlos] That section was contributed by the LDACS experts, so I trust this should be OK. In any case, I take the opportunity to request them to check this.
SB> In all the human interaction examples, I am surprised there is no mention
of haptics. A latency failure in a haptic experience can make the participant
feel nauseous and vomit.
[Carlos] Thanks, I have added a sentence to highlight this.
Thanks,
Carlos
Nits/editorial comments:
None
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
