[ippm] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: (with COMMENT)

[Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ippm-multipoint-alt-mark-07: 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-multipoint-alt-mark/



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

(1) Some of the terminology in this document can be confusing.  For example, I
can't help but thinking about multicast and replication when reading about a
point-to-multipoint flow.  Digging into the document, the concept is eventually
explained (and the fact that multicast is not supported).  I think that there
would be great benefit in adding a Terminology section to include a short
definition of the flow types and other terms (production network, monitoring
network, etc.).

(2) This document is classified as Experimental.  What is the experiment?

Given that the document describes a methodology and not an interoperable
implementation, should the experiment be, for example, to consider the
applicability of the methodology to different applications?  It can obviously
be something else...but I think it is important to indicate what it is.

FWIW, given that this is an "extension of RFC 8321", I think that Experimental
is the right status.