Hi Mike, > ### "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.
This was deemed necessary to explain why we wanted to publish this algorithm and to clarify the future of this particular work. > ### 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. As noted previously, all threats to centralized dynamic flooding algorithms are common, regardless of algorithm and have already been discussed in RFC 9667. Practically speaking, there is no additional DoS threat introduced here. If the IGP is compromised, then the are innumerable issues, none of which have to do with RFC 9667. If there are issues with an RFC 9667 implementation, there can be numerous operational issues, but none of them are security issues. > ## 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. This was fixed in the proposed -05 changes that I posted on July 31st. I still have not received any comment on whether those changes are acceptable. Regards, Tony _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
