On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 3:17 PM Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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. > point taken, need to think about it but at first look it's a differentiation w/o distinction between component and CPS. and what you describe is another algo to compute a CDS in a distributed fashion to me it seems ;-) > > > > > > --- > > > > 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. > > point taken and yes, ascii is shambles for now > 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]
