Subject: [Detnet] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:41:50 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases-19: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-use-cases/

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

I appreciate the work that went into this draft, and am balloting "No
Objection".

I also greatly appreciate the fact the draft has text to explain why it would
have archival value as an RFC. However, I'm not sure I'm convinced. Much of its
value is as input to other WG efforts, which I assume will eventually complete.
The remaining value seems to be to provide design context to future users or
the technology. While I can sort of accept that, it's an argument that could
apply to almost any WG input document. (Note: I don't really expect a change
due to this comment.)

Other than that, I have some specific comments:

*** Substantive ***

§2.1.1: Would it be worthwhile to discuss whether Forward Error Correction
(FEC) is helpful here?

§5.1: "For example, a 1% cost reduction in some areas could save
$100B"
I really hope the math if off. $100B is 1% of $10T.

§9.1.2: "The challenge of blockchain network operation is not overall data
rates, since the volume from both block and item stays between
hundreds of bytes to a couple of mega bytes per second, but is in
transporting the blocks with minimum latency to maximize efficiency
of the blockchain consensus process."

That needs elaboration. What is the impact of latency on the consensus process?
It's not obvious to me from the text how this is more impacted the ''average"
application.

§17: Are there really no normative references? Please keep in mind that any
reference that must be read for the reader to fully understand the draft should
be normative.

*** Editorial ***

- General:

-- There are a number of assertions that refer to the current state of
technology. Words like "currently" tend to age badly in RFCs. I suggest
qualifying those with something to the effect of "At the time of
publication...".

-- There seems to be some overlap between use cases. I wonder why things like
"Wireless for Industrial Applications" and "Mining Industry", which describes
an industrial application of wireless, are treated separately.

§3.1.1.4: "The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has recently
published...": Will not age well.
§5, title: "Industrial" is not a noun. I suggest "Wireless for Industrial
Applications". §7, title: Please expand M2M in the section title. §7.3: First
sentence is a fragment. §8.2, third paragraph: Please define "leaky feeder" §9
and subsections: This section needs proofreading for missing articles and
plurals. §9.1.1: s/ "amount of items"/"number of items" §9.1.2: - 2nd
paragraph: "initiates" is a transitive verb. A node either initiates
_something_, or a node is initiated. - 3rd paragraph: 2nd sentence has multiple
comma splices. §9.1.3: typo: "todayt" §10.3, first paragraph: "currently under
development" will not age well.