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

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Barry Leiba 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found this to be a somewhat difficult read, with some awkward wording. 
Because of time constraints I’ll mostly not comment specifically, but leave it
to the RPC.  My comments below on Section 1 are examples.

— Abstract —

   This document aims to generalize and expand this
   methodology

“This document generalizes and expands this methodology”

— Section 1 —
The “; so” in the first sentence doesn’t follow from what comes before.  It
seems that you’ve just glued together two unrelated sentences, and I would
unglue them: “point-to-point path.  The extension proposed”

How does the extension explain anything?  Isn’t it the document that does the
explaining, but then the extension that does the enabling?

I can’t parse the first sentence of the second paragraph, and I can’t figure
out what you’re trying to say.  Can you try re-writing it?

Please check to make sure you are consistent about capitalizing “Alternate
Marking” and “Multipoint Alternate Marking” through the document.  It looks
like you have it about half and half.