Re: [ippm] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06: (with COMMENT)

["MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Erik, thanks for your review and comments.
Please see replies below [acm], all changes have been implemented in the working version.

regards,
Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Kline via Datatracker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:37 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; Ian Swett <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-
> method-06: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06: No Objection
> 
...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [[ comments ]]
> 
> [ section 4 ]
> 
> * RFC 6438 isn't only about flow label treatment at Tunnel End Points,
> since
>   other devices in the network can do ECMP where the flow label is part of
>   the flow.
> 
>   Maybe just a full stop after "when routers have complied with RFC6438
>   guidelines."?
[acm] 
This change is fine with me.

> 
> 
> [[ questions ]]
> 
> [ sections 5.6/6.6/7.4 ]
> 
> * Should the "megabit = 1,000,000 bits" text from section 6.6 be also used
>   in sections 5.6 and 7.4, or even called out separately earlier on?
[acm] 
Thanks for your suggestion.
I added " (which is 1,000,000 bits per second to avoid any confusion)"
in 5.6 and 7.4. (this may have been an earlier comment intended to apply everywhere).

> 
>   (Maybe it's just my own experience, but I've found that, while "mibi" 100%
>   of the time means base 2, "mega" only mostly means base 10 and occasionally
>   can still be interpreted as base 2.)
[acm] 
We share that experience. Others might ask, "what's a kibibit?"

> 
> 
> [[ nits ]]
> 
> [ section 2 ]
> 
> * "Also, to foster the development..."
> 
>   This appears to be a sentence fragment rather than a grammatically
> correct
>   sentence.  I assume the point is to say that fostering the development
> ...
>   is also goal of the document.
[acm] 
Thanks, I re-wrote that sentence as follows:

Fostering the development of protocol support for this metric and method of measurement is also a goal of this memo (all active testing protocols currently defined by the IPPM WG are UDP-based, meeting a key requirement of these methods).


> 
> * "The supporting" -> "Supporting the", might read more naturally?
[acm] 
It might, except we would then have two sentences in a row (with the change above) beginning:
Fostering the...
Supporting the...

I left "The supporting" as-is.

> 
> [ section 5.4 ]
> 
> * "The statistics used to to summarize" -> "The statistics used to summarize"
[acm] 
Thanks

> 
> [ section 6.5 ]
> 
> * "so that is" -> "so that it is"?
[acm] 
Thanks

> 
>