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]
