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
--- 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. 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]
