[manet] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-manet-inet-03.txt

You got me interested in a source. I think these people are reputable. I’m surprised short range IoT devices have overtaken phones.

But, yes 10^10 is the right order of magnitude.

(I’m not sure, from my previous skimming, how relevant that total is, because I don’t think most will ever be relevant to a MANET, but that’s another matter.)


https://www.statista.com/statistics/1559435/connected-devices-worldwide
Global number of connected devices by device 2025| Statista
statista.com




> On 31 Mar 2026, at 16:37, Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Juliusz and Christopher, thank you for your comments and you are both right. Can we simply say that the number of cellphones is on the order of slightly more than the number of people on the planet and therefore O(10**10)? (No google AI quotes needed).
> 
> Thank you - Fred
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Christopher Dearlove <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 5:09 AM
>> To: Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Templin (US), Fred L <[email protected]>; [email protected] List <[email protected]>; Daniel Jakubisin <[email protected]>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [manet] Re: FW: I-D Action: draft-templin-manet-inet-03.txt
>> 
>> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I expect that use of AI created text in RFCs, and thus IDs is something the IETF through the IESG is considering, maybe our AD has a comment.
>> But I agree that it shouldn’t be used. Even though this is not a critical use.
>> 
>> In addition to Juliusz’s point, Google searches, AI or otherwise, are based on the search term (unknown) and individualised, so it’s likely that if I
>> searched with the same search term I wouldn’t get that exact (quoted) text. All reasons the underlying information should be omitted or well
>> sourced.
>> 
>> But, if that’s the only use, it’s really a minor aside. And the basic message - lots of phones - is undoubtably true. (Whether important then
>> relies on the rest of the argument. Which I’ve not read, only skimmed an earlier draft.)
>> 
>> I would suggest just getting rid of or sourcing that comment in an -04. And checking if anything else needing similar treatment.
>> 
>>> On 31 Mar 2026, at 11:50, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Fred,
>>> 
>>> I started to read your draft, and then I reached the fifth paragraph of
>>> the introduction:
>>> 
>>> « Google AI reports that: ... »
>>> 
>>> I do not know whether "Google AI" is an acceptable source in an IETF
>>> draft, but I certainly do not have the time, energy or inclination to read
>>> a document that contains unsourced LLM-generated text.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> -- Juliusz Chroboczek
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> manet mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]