Re: [ippm] [Gen-art] Genart LC and telechat review: draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04

Thank you very much for your in-depth review, Robert. Joachim, Al - have you taken note of the editorial suggestions? I at least think the suggestions were all good.

Jari

On May 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> wrote:

> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
> 
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04
> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
> Review Date: 9-May-2014
> IETF LC End Date: 12-May-2014
> IESG Telechat date: 15-May-2014
> 
> Summary: This document is ready for publication as an Informational RFC
> 
> Thanks for a well constructed document!
> 
> It's in good enough shape that it invites very small polishing suggestions :)
> I have a few tweaks to suggest - feel free to ignore them:
> 
> In document order:
> 
> Introduction, 3rd paragraph: What are the "proposed extensions"? Is this
> sentence trying to say "There are proposed extensions to allow methodologies
> to fulfill the continuity requirement stated in section 6.2, but it is impossible
> to guarantee that they can do so?"
> 
> Bullet 2 in block 1. of section 3: The first sentence is a fragment, and is
> confusing. Should this bullet read "Payload content optimization (compression
> or format conversion) in intermediate segments breaks the convention of
> payload correspondence when correlating measurements are made at different
> points in a path."? (That is, delete ". This" and change "made"->"are made".)
> 
> There are inconsistent styles used in the subsections of section 4 that cause
> the main points to be a little hard to pull out of the text:
> 
> * in 4.1, you quote the new definition. Visually, that implies you're quoting
> another source, like you do above it for the old definition. I suggest doing
> something else to set this apart from the rest of the text - perhaps an
> indented block?
> 
> * Whatever you do there, consider doing the same in the other sections.
> Highlight "we deprecate continuity" in 4.2, for example.
> 
> * 4.4's point seems buried. Would it be correct to say (and would it help
> highlight the point): "Conservative measurements in these environments
> may not be possible."?
> 
> Consider changing the heading text for 4.1 to 4.5 to highlight the
> change or observation you're making. That would help drive the point
> of the document in the ToC. Something like this (I'm sure I've blown
> the capitalization).
> 
> 4.1.  Revised Definition Of Repeatability
> 4.2.  Continuity is not an Appropriate Alternative Criterion
> 4.3.  Metrics Should be Actionable
> 4.4.  It May Not be Possible to be Conservative
> 4.5.  Spatial and Temporal Composition May Bias Sampling
> 4.6.  Truncate the Tails of Poisson Deistrubutions
> 
> In the conclusion, break the last (very long) sentence out
> into its own paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art