Hi authors, 

Many thanks for the effort put into this document along several years. 

I reviewed the document from an ops-dir review, but I also have more general comments:

# OPS

Although mentioned too late in the document (security section), the document says explicitly that it does not include any ops considerations. It is fair to set that scope given the rich content of the document and main objective to describe technologies themselves. However, such mention should be included early in the document.

There are ops considerations that are applicable to scheduling resources in general, path computation, or synchronization matters. Nevertheless, given that the objectives is not to provide recommendations about the various technologies, I would not ask the authors to add NEW text with these considerations for each technology. That would be over-specifying here. Instead, the authors may include relevant pointer are readily available. This is not even needed with the suggested note about ops considerations are not in scope.

The document includes an OAM section for one specific technology, but that section is too brief and does include up-to-date specific pointers. Cited documents are generic or expired since a while.

# Generic

## Target audience/consumer of this material

I know that it is frustrating to receive this kind of comments after many years of effort maintaining this doc, but I sincerely think that the document lacks some words to explain the rationale of collecting this material and how this is intended to be used in the IETF. This clarification is specifically needed as some of the text needs some refresh (see next point). Including such text will also help understanding the value of publishing this as an RFC (which I suspect this might be questioned by some).

## Stale/Need to refresh

The text includes stale text (e.g., pointer to specs that expired several years ago, text that won't age well, text that need to be refreshed to reflect progress (or lack of progress in cited SDOs). I tagged some off those in my review, but I can't claim that I tagged all of them.

The text can be cleaned in several places to avoid what can be seen as speculating or over-selling some efforts.

## Liaise with material owners

The material included in various sections is owned by other SDOs. Unless this is already done, it would be reasonable to send LSes to at least 3GPP/IEEE to review relevant sections.

# Detailed review

A more detailed review can be found using the following links:

* pdf: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2024/draft-ietf-raw-technologies-10-rev%20Med.pdf
* doc: https://github.com/boucadair/IETF-Drafts-Reviews/blob/master/2024/draft-ietf-raw-technologies-10-rev%20Med.doc

Feel free to grab whatever you think useful for the document. 

Hope this helps. 

Cheers,
Med