Mike Bishop 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # IESG review of draft-ietf-lsr-dynamic-flooding-algorithm-04 CC @MikeBishop ## Comments ### "Abstract", paragraph 4 ``` 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. This document is published as an ``` This seems unnecessary in a document ready to be published. I echo Roman's questions. ### Section 6, paragraph 2 This document does add server-side logic, and the SecDir review noted this as a potential DoS threat. If that's out-of-scope, fine, but probably worth a sentence in the Security Considerations explaining why. ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Grammar/style #### Section 1.1.2, paragraph 2 ``` y Considerations identified in Section Section 6 have been validated or updat ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ``` Possible typo: you repeated a word. _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
