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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
