> On Jul 22, 2025, at 8:13 AM, Tony Przygienda <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. yes, this needs work for the archeological ASCII support ;-) on out plate > 2. fine, no issue with "non-prunner" and we can use N and N| for it. > 3. per Tony Li > 4. a CDS will be always computed, either in a distributed fashion or a > centralized fashion. If an algorithm doesn't compute CDS somehow how will it > know it doesn't partition the component, Acee? And as 3., CDS is a well > known graph theory term, in fact I'm already loose in the language since it's > a edge connected dominating set > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_dominating_set
I know very well what a CDS and this is why I suggested "CPS" rather than "component". One could argue that the CPS is not a unidirected and hence not a "component" since the routers on either side of the edges the CPS sub-graph must support the same flooding algorithm. I still think CDS is orthogonal to CPS in this context since the CPS is a set of routers running the same flooding algorithm and CDS is the set of routers that are required to flood in a class of flooding algorithms. You could have a simpler flooding algorithm that don't require CDS computation but simply uses a heuristic to determine who floods and who waits to see if they get the LSP from their neighbor. Anyway, I guess it doesn't hurt that much to leave it in the document. > > --- > > 1. this is how you annotate things in graph theory. there may be multiple > components running A which is an algorithm and A| is the CDS algorithm A > builds. standard way is to say A|_1 and A|_2 really but since that looks > super ugly on ASCII I took the 2nd better choice which is A|' and A|'' . > Let's not be smarter than 300+ years of mathematicians that dealt with that > stuff. Well, if you're looking at the .txt version that most people are reviewing in the meeting materials, it doesn't make any sense. With the figure, you can discern that A|' and A|'' are separate instances of a CPS running flooding algorithm A. However, I'm not sure such a simple concept benefits from the "A|" notation. Maybe you could at least add a legend to the figure to explain this to those reading it for the first time. Thanks, Acee > 2. sure > > > --- tony > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:28 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote: > Speaking as WG member: > > It seems my comments on this draft continue to go without response. I would > have hoped that at least some of them would have been addressed during WG > adoption. > > 1. The draft is optimized towards _markdown_ and pdf rendering. It is > should be optimized towards text since that is what everyone is reviewing > when they download meeting materials. > 2. I've given up on not using the term "pruner" for "flooding algorithm" > as I can tell that there is "pining for pruning". However, for no flooding > algorithm, please do not use the term "zero pruner" and certainly not "zero". > Rather use, "no-pruner" or "non-pruner". In fact, the term "zero" may not > even meet the IETF requirements for inclusive language. > 3. The invented term "connected component" is very confusing. We already > have CDS so why not "CPS" for "Connected Pruner Set"? > 4. While we're talking about CDS, I think that section 2.1.3 is > orthogonal. There could be simple flooding reduction algorithms that do not > compute a CDS. > > > Other minor comments: > > 1. I'm not fond of the terminology of A|, A|', A|'', B|', etc. Is this > necessary? This could be just be flooding algos (i.e., pruners) A, B, and N > (for none). > 2. Should the "Contributors" section be "Acknowledgements"? > > > Thanks, > Acee > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
