On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 7:48 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
> Speaking as WG member: > > I support adoption. > thanks Acee > > 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". > "non-prunner" I think is OK a term we could go with if people think that makes it more readable than "zero prunner". We can even move away from "pruner" for this class of algorithms if someone has a significantly better term that crosses their minds. > > 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. > Those are not "clever" terms. Those are terms used for many, many years in graph theory and describing "precisely" what the "thing" has to be to work. Also, clique is a term used in the context of graphs and means something rather different than a "connected component". AFAIS nothing prevents people from calling the stuff "flooding topology" of course as long we have a framework in place making it clear that means a "edge dominating set allowing cycles/loops" rather than having later to discuss in future in context of subtle algorithms what a "flooding topology" really is. Hence the document spells that stuff out. > 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/ I fail to read your point somehow here. You mean an ASCII figure showing this is necessary. Yes, work item to do once draft adopted of course. -- tony > > > 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]
