Thanks for pointing this out. However, I still think it is confusing given that it is not used in the base IGP documents. I still think that once you accept the term "pruner" for flooding algorithm, CPS (Connected Pruner Set) is much more intuitive.
The concept of connected IGP routers running the same flooding algorithm is actually very simple and one shouldn't need a PhD to understand it. Thanks, Acee > On Jul 22, 2025, at 6:45 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]
