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

[Giuseppe Fioccola <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,
Thanks a lot for your review.
Please find my replies inline tagged as [GF].

Regards,

Giuseppe

-----Original Message-----
From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 1:31 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-rfc8889bis-03: (with COMMENT)

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.

[GF]: Maybe we could change the title to "Clustered Alternate-Marking Method" and mention the concept of Cluster in the Abstract too.

### Cluster

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

[GF]: I guess you agree with the canonical definition in section 2. I will double check if there are other mentions in the draft that can be confusing.

### Section 5

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

[GF]: We can consider to replace it.

### 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.

[GF]: You are right. The case of NAT could 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.

[GF]: Ok, I will revise.