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

[Erik Kline via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-capacity-metric-method-06: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


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



----------------------------------------------------------------------
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."?


[[ 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?

  (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.)


[[ 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.

* "The supporting" -> "Supporting the", might read more naturally?

[ section 5.4 ]

* "The statistics used to to summarize" -> "The statistics used to summarize"

[ section 6.5 ]

* "so that is" -> "so that it is"?