To point 3: A component is a well known graph theoretic term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_(graph_theory)
This is not 'invented'. This is a fundamental part of the technology that we work with. T On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:35 PM Acee Lindem - acee.lindem at gmail.com < [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]
