I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . 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.