[ippm] Warren Kumari's Yes on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-on-lag-05: Yes

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-stamp-on-lag/



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

Thank you for writing this - this seems like a very useful document, solving a
real issue.

I have have a number of comments and suggestions to try and make the document
even better / clearer:

1: "Usually, when forwarding traffic over LAG, the hash-based mechanism is used
to load balance the traffic across the LAG member links." I suggest "when
forwarding traffic over LAG, a hash-based mechanism is used" or "hash-based
mechanisms are used" -- everyone has their own hash based mechanism...

2: "Link delay of each member link varies because of different transport
paths." -- "The link delay might vary between member links because..." -- the
majority of LAGs (citation needed!) are single hop Ethernets between
switches/routers, and have (for all intents and purposes) identical delay.

3: "OWAMP [RFC4656] and TWAMP [RFC5357] are two active measurement methods
according to the classification given in [RFC7799], which can complement
passive and hybrid methods." I found this sentence hard to parse. Perhaps
something like "According to the classifications in [RFC7799], OWAMP [RFC4656]
and TWAMP [RFC5357] are active measurement methods, and they can complement
passive and hybrid methods."

4: "This document intends to address the scenario (e.g., Figure 1) where a LAG
(e.g., the LAG includes four member links) directly connects two nodes (A and
B)." This was another tricky (for me) to parse sentence. Perhaps "This document
intends to address the scenario directly connects two nodes (A and B). An
example of this is in Figure 1, where the LAG consisting of four links connects
nodes A and B." would be clearer?

Again, I think that this is a useful document, these are just readability
suggestions...