Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you to Joel Halpern for the GENART review. ** Abstract. This document discloses the algorithm that we have developed in order to make it easier for other developers to implement similar algorithms. We do not claim that our algorithm is optimal, rather it is a pragmatic effort and we expect that further research and refinement can improve the results. We are not currently proposing that this algorithm be standardized, nor that the working group use this as a basis for further standardization work, however we have no objections if the working group chooses to do so. -- Who is the “we” in this text? It reads like it would be the authors, but this is an adopted WG document? -- What does it mean for a WG to have “no objections” to itself choosing to work further on this topic? ** Section 1.1.2. I applaud the inclusion of success criteria. Who is this section for? A future WG can ignore all of this guidance and attempt to standardize the materials. Success criteria for an experiment is different than the criteria to publish work as a PS. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
