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.

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.

Nits/editorial comments:
None