IP Performance Metrics (IPPM): Spatial and Multicast
draft-ietf-ippm-multimetrics-12

Figure 2

This would benefit from some explanation. 

I presume 'x' does not have the same quality as 'X' although 'X' is not referenced.

It is not clear whether this is an example such that all nodes are candidate points of interest, but those 'x' just happen to not be points of interest.

Is there any significance in Figure 2 using 1,2,3,J where Figure 1 used 1,2,3,I?

Is the figure supposed to imply labeling of the 'X' hosts as 1,2,3,J?

---

Nice to expand "ipdv" on first use.

---

Section 4.1

   o  Monitoring the decomposed performance of a multicast tree based on
      of MPLS point-to-multipoint communications.

s/on of/on/

---

Figure 6

I suppose that this only applies for J[n] > 0

Obviously, it would be pointless to compute if no packets were received. Need to say so?

---

Section 9.1

OLD
   However, it may result in a lost of information.  As all measured
   singletons are not available for building up the group matrix, the
   real performance over time can be hidden from the result.
NEW
   However, it may result in a loss of information.  As not all
                                  ^                     ^^^
   measured singletons are available for building up the group matrix,
   the real performance over time can be hidden from the result.

---

Section 9.2

   To prevent any bias in the result, the configuration of a one-to-many
   measure must take in consideration that intrically more packets will
   to be routed than sent (copies of a packet sent are expected to
   arrive at many destination points) and selects a test packets rate
   that will not impact the network performance.

"intrically"?

Do you mean "intrinsically" or "intricately"? Maybe just delete the word and let "more" stand on its own.

---

Section 10

s/documents defines/documents define/

But actually...
   Usually IPPM WG documents defines each metric reporting within its
   definition.
...is either circuitous or has no meaning!

---

Section 10.1.2

   It is highly suggested to use the TTL in IPv4,
   the Hop Limit in IPv6 or the corresponding information in MPLS.

Is "highly suggested" language for inclusion in draft-ietf-rfc2119bis-00.txt?

---

Section 13

   Metrics defined in this memo Metrics defined in this memo are

Duplicate words.

---

Section 13

You might help IANA by making it clear that each "nn" is a different
number, possibly by using aa, bb, cc, etc.

In Section 10:

>  This document defines the reporting of all the metrics
   introduced in a single section to provide consistent information, to
   avoid repetitions and to conform to IESG recommendation of gathering
   manageability considerations in a dedicated section.

While it is true that some of the IESG members hold the opinion that gathering manageability considerations in a dedicated section is a good thing, there is no IESG recommendation on this respect.

The term "ipdv" was introduced here for the first time, please add
a reference or a term definition:

   o  Type-P-Spatial-One-way-ipdv-Vector divides an end-to-end Type-P-
      One-way-ipdv into a spatial vector of ipdv singletons.

Stephen Farrell's SecDir reviewed found some editorial nits that 
should be fixed:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg00943.html

First sentence of section 3 needs a closing ']'

Section 9.1, 4th para, s/transit/transmit/

Notation nits:

Figure 4's right-most column has repeated R3's where it meant R1, R2, R3

The paragraph below that figure talks about "observed at M points of 
interest" where I think it meant "n points".

As discussed in email, there is a mix of RnMD and RnDM in section 8.3 that should be the same.

As discussed in email, Ln(k) in figure 10 and L(k,n) in figure 11 could use additional explanation.