[ippm] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03: (with COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03: 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 the work done in this document.

Please find below some non-blocking COMMENT points; a reply will be appreciated.

Regards

-éric

## COMMENTS

### I-D Name

The name of the I-D is quite confusing "multipoint-to-multipoint"... I would
have really preferred to use "cluster" in the title and abstract.

### Cluster

About "cluster", I second John's original comment about the "fuzziness" of the
cluster definition.

### Section 5

"multipoint flows" is also weird as usually a flow is between 2 entities.
Suggest to use "flow aggregate"

### Cluster and NAT

A cluster is only defined as packets in == packets out. But, if 'flow' is
defined per IP addresses or 5-tuple, those properties must also be invariant,
i.e., neither IPv4 NAPT nor IPv6 NPT nor encapsulation/decapsulation. This
seems obvious, but this should be mentioned.

### Section 9

The title is about 'recommendations', but the text contains 'MUST' and not 'IS
RECOMMENDED'. Suggest to change either the section title or the text itself.