Hi,
    Thanks for a well written, technical draft. I have no comments that stop publication, however, I do have a couple of editorial comments to make, focused mostly at the top of the document. Also, thanks for a doc clean of nits, much appreciated!

- While I find the language overall to be very approachable, in the 1. Introduction section, you wrote "till" - please consider replacing with "until".
- Also in the Introduction section, you wrote "performances may fall behind..." - it wasn't clear which multiples of performances you were referring to - be specific, or consider revising "performances" to "performance".
- I found the draft assumes serious familiarity of the reader on the subject. For example, in Section 2.2, first para, "Past experience with fragmentation" - I found myself wondering "whose past experience"? You might consider tightening up the language here to be clear. I'll also add that including a decent list of follow up docs was greatly appreciated, thanks! That will be helpful to a broader audience.


Thanks,
Sarah