Re: [ippm] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with COMMENT)

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zaheduzzaman,
Thank you for the revision,
Please find my reply inline tagged as [GF].
I will also address your comments in the next version.

Best Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2022 10:10 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: (with COMMENT)

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-02: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis/



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

Thanks for working on this specification.

I am supporting Roman, John, Alvaro's discuss.

I have following comments which I believe would improve the document quality,
if addressed.

## Section 2: I really didn't get the definition of the flow. May be it is my
lack of expertise in English language or the technology used here but when the
definition of flow is defined by flow ( is says- a flow can be
multipoint-to-multipoint flow) it becomes very difficult to understand. Are we
defining flow or identification of flow? It would be great to get a better
description of the definition of  "flow". I also agree with John's comment that
if a flow does not have traffic, is this also a flow? May be we merely defining
the link between network nodes as flow, then I would say the term flow is
overloaded.

Actually section 3 has a much better definition of flow. why don't we use that?

       "a flow can be defined by a set of selection rules used to
   match a subset of the packets processed by the network device.  These
   rules specify a set of Layer 3 and Layer 4 header fields
   (identification fields) and the relative values that must be found in
   matching packets"

[GF]: I see your point. To avoid confusion it is better to use only a single definition. I tend to agree that the definition in section 3 is more general and can be used to avoid misunderstanding.

## Section 2: according to the definition of the cluster, any single node can
be a cluster and measure of the that cluster will be same as point to point
measure defined in rfc8321bis (like node packet loss). is that correct
interpretation? if yes, rfc8321bis becomes a subset of this specification, is
that the intention?

[GF]: Yes it is correct.

## Section 2.1 : as group to group segments are not used to define cluster in
this specification, I would suggest following change -

       OLD text: the spatial metrics, used for measuring the performance of
       segments of a source to destination path, are applied here to
       group-to-group segments (called clusters).

       NEW text : the spatial metrics, used for measuring the performance of
       segments of a source to destination path, are applied here to
       clusters.

[GF]: Ok.

## Section 4.2 : What is "Non-initial fragments"?

[GF]: This definition is in RFC8321bis and means fragments originated by nodes within the domain. I have to add more explanation here or refer to RFC8321bis

## I think it is confusing when terms defined in the terminology section get
redefined in the later sections in a different way than how it is defined in
the terminology section. the term "cluster" is an example of such case. can we
stick to one single definition of cluster and other terms used in this document?

[GF]: Yes, as also raised in other reviews, I think it is better to define cluster only in the Terminology section and refer to it where needed. The same applies to the other terms.