Subject: [ippm] Comments on draft-mizrahi-ippm-compact-alternate-marking-03

From: "MORTON, ALFRED C (AL)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 16:30:30 +0000

Hi Tal and co-authors,

A couple of questions and comments occurred to me
as I reviewed your draft.

The overview of the many methods is very well constructed and welcome.
A roadmap to all these techniques is definitely needed, now that
there are so many. It’s a little unexpected to see new techniques
and extensions introduced here. Perhaps this is really two memos?

IMO, the roadmap with summary/comparisons, and the new
extensions/techniques are both valuable WG contributions,
and would be useful WG drafts.

For all methods, sample characteristics are dependent
on the sender and the user’s application(s).
This should be clear as an introductory consideration,
and in the Summary.

I think it would be good to add a calculation of the time sync requirements
for a common or future-looking deployment, and show that when it’s
not a very demanding requirement (and mention this in the Summary).

8. Summary introduced the multipoint methods for the first time.
IMO, the summary should only cover the methods already described,
or clearly distinguish that it is for the Pt-Pt methods, and then
discuss the Multipoint methods in a separate section.

Thanks for considering this review!
Al