Speaking as WG member: I support adoption.
I do think draft terminology could be improved. Despite the risk of confusion with AI-based landscaping, I've resigned myself to you using "pruner". However, for a node that is not preforming any flooding reduction, this should be a "non-pruner" rather than a "zero-pruner" or, worse yet, "zero". Additionally, I think the term "connected set" for a group of routers running the same flooding reduction algorithm is a poor choice. You say these are "colloquially often" called "flooding topologies" which is exactly what they should be called. If we're going to come up a clever term, I'd suggest "Flood Uniform Clique" since the routers in one such grouping can reduce their LSP advertisement without regard to what is being done in another such grouping. Finally, I don't see the need to optimize the output to the non-ASCII test format when this is not the default you get when the draft is displayed in the datatracker - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-distoptflood/ Thanks, Acee > On Apr 27, 2025, at 10:39 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > > LSR WG, > > This starts the Working Group adoption call for > draft-prz-lsr-interop-flood-reduction-architecture-01. Please send your > support or objection to this list before Monday, May 12th, 2025. > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
