Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04
review-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04-genart-lc-sparks-2014-05-09-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ippm-2330-update
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 05)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2014-05-12
Requested 2014-04-29
Draft last updated 2014-05-09
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Robert Sparks (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Robert Sparks
State Completed
Review review-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04-genart-lc-sparks-2014-05-09
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 05)
Review result Ready
Review completed: 2014-05-09

Review
review-ietf-ippm-2330-update-04-genart-lc-sparks-2014-05-09

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.